Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-12-22
NEW COUPON DECISION.
Opinion OF Judae Hughes in fmportau'
IN tuf Stnte.


debt cases and coupon legislation, the
following opinion just rendered by
Judge Robert w. Hughes, merits at
tention
Jnffcd States Circuit Court. Richmond. De-
ccfRbcr 10. 1885, William Il. JOnes rs. me
Commonwealth Of Virginia susan q;
Turner ~. Same. and -Four Otier ,dsesV
Same Character.
OF these causes the one first named ana
four others were pending IN the liustlhss
Court OF Richmond, and that OF susan A.
Turner. In the Corporation court Oh NVl-
folk They were brought on petitions ior
the verification Of coupons. which had Oeen
offered in payment OF taxes under tne ~
OF Assembly approved January -, loHE'
Ito prevent frauds upon the Common.
wealth" sc. The ground on whlcn tnev
have been removed into this court is tnat
petitioners insist that they involve Fede-
raj question. They are before me on
motion OF the Attorney-General TO re-
mand.
offered i'm payment Of taxes due the COM
mOnwcalth the revenue officer snan re-
ceiye and give receipt for them, shall MAKE
them up into package, shall endorse the
initials OF the taxpayers name upon the
package, and shall deliver the package 10
the Judge OF the County or Corporation
Court OF the county or corporation In
which the coupons are offered. III
tition In that court calling for jury. and
directs that a Jury shall be empanclled 10
Try the question whether 1.-THE coupons are
genuine. legal coupons, which are tegdty
Tecciudbie for taxes, &c. ~
Eassed laws subsequent TO that under con-
sideratiOn. which forbid her revenue oiii-
GERS TO receive coupons for taxes, some Oh
them as 10 part Of the taxes due, some
OF them altogether. They charge That
these laws violate the Constitution OF
the United States. by impairing the con-
tract engraved on the face OF the coupons
setting forth that they shall be receivable
for all dues and taxes TO the state. They
allege that the question OF the validity OF
these later laws must necessarily arise be-
fore the jurics empanelled TO try the Issue
whether the coupons are genuine and . lee
1dfIU rCccirGJic" for taxes, which is a Fed
eral question. arising upon the later laws
alluded TO. And they insist that the cases
at bar were removable into this court and
ought not 10 be remanded, because OF the
Federal question thus involved. more than
$500 in amount OF coupons having been
rendered In each case.
The argument for Jurisdiction thus pre-
scented Is cogent as well as plausible. and IL
worthy OF careful consideration. The in.
uuiries on which the decision OF the motion
must turn are: What was the meaning OF
the Legislature of 1882 in the statute BY
which IL submits certain issues 10 the jury
in cases brought for the verflcation OF cOu-
IL intend that the jury should pass upon?
The act OF January IA 1882, on which
all these cases are founded, recites that
bonds OF the State purpOrting 10 have been
issued under her funding act Of 1871 and
1879 are in existence without authority Of
law, which are spurious, stolen, or forged,
and which bear coupons similar 10 those re-
ceivable for taxes, which are, OF course,
likewise spurious. stolen. or forged. II re-
cites, furt ncrmore, that there are genuine
from npnulne bonds.
having been once received in payment OF
dues 10 the State, are frauduenty reissued
and offered more than once In such pay
neuts, 10, therefore, for the purpose OF
preventing frauds upon the COmmOn-
wealth thus described, proceeds TO provide
way for verifying the geuulueness Of all
coupons offered for taXes. and testing
whether genuine ones are offered more than
once in payment of taxes.
The manner in which the act directs
the trial OF these questions has been
already indicated. The evils at which
the statute WAS aimed were-irst, the
| use OF spurious coupons; and. Sc
cOnd, The USE more than once OF genuine
coupons in payment OF taxes. The act pro-
| Nides III substance and intention That the
| Jury ST all try. fiIst. whether the coupons
are genuine, legal coupons. not spurious;
and second whether. II genuine. tney are
| legally receivable for taxes I'm not having
| been received for the purpose before. That
| was the whole and sole intention OF the
| IfElSialult III lilt pi INC lliNdliOu
| Of coupons.
| construed with reference 10 the evils eX.
| istiDg at the time OF It's enactment. set out
| in its preliminary clauses, am convinced
| that have thus stated the pain, natural,
| precise meaning OF the act OF January II.
| 1882, II the language. "a Jury shall be
| empanclled tOtTy the question as 10 whether
! the coupons offered are genuine. legal cOu-
| lons which are legally receivable for
| taxes. had been used in some other statute
! intended TO remedy some other evils. 10 IL
| conceivable that the subm ssion OF some
| other QuestiOns-eVen cOntrOVerted queS-
! fions OF cOnst tut ional law-tO the Jury Of
| a county or corporation court, might have
! been Intended. But IL is an elementary
| principle OF construction that all remedial
| Statutes must be construed with reference
| 10 the evils sought 10 be remedled, and not
enlarged to embrace matters which did not
! enter into the contemplation OF the Legtsla-
ture. When the lang uage ola clause ofsuch
| a statute is not precise. ana admits OF appU-
cation beyond the evils IT was designed to
urOyide against, a court Is not only at lib
! erty but is bound TO look over the who.e
| statute. and TO restrict the clause To "A
! meaning consOnant with the plain object
| understood compels one 80 10 con-
| strue remedial act as To sup
| press the evil aimed at and advance
| Inc remedy provided for It's suppression.
! The real Intention OF a statute. when once
| collected with certainty. must always be
| made TO prevail over the literal sense OF lis
terms. Ii must be expounded, not accord
| ing 10 its letter. but 10 Its intention. These
are elem entary canons ofslatutoryc onstruc-
| ton and they are conclusive OF inc mouon
| to remand these cases.
| For applying them, II IS clear 10 me that
| the act OF January Ia, lsS2, 9 TO prevent
| Ir0toIS upOn the Commonwealth frauds
| nerpetraied by paying spurious coupons for
! 10 and by the repeated use OF genuine
| coupons not legally receivable more than
! once for taxes. meant ana could nave
I lint M al
foct should be submitted To the Jury az had
reference TO the "(rGUiS' pointed out by
the act as the evils designed To be pre-
vented" The passage Of laws by subsequent
| legislatures. fOTbiddlng the receipt OF
genuine coupons at all for taxes
was not I'm the contemplation OF the
Legislature Of 1882; nor could the receipt
| az genuine coupons single Time nave been
| contemplated ~ "A fraud within the evils u
| be RENE died by the act, because one OF IT.
causes expressly recites IL 10 be an object
Of the jury trial II provides for, "to protect
| the rights of bOndholders and 10 enforce
the contract between them and the Co a.
| rnonwealth.' which stipulates that genu-
ipe coupons shall each be once legally re-
ceivable in payment Of taxes.
Thus interpreting the act under cOnsdera
ton cannot suppose fora moment that in
a summary proceeding by petition. without
/ other pleadings. the Legislature INTENDED
that jury should be called upon TO try
grave questions OF constitutional law. II
II did not, Then no Federal question can
legtimately arise in the cases instituted fOI
the verihcation OF coupons: and Tor thi.
reason, II no other they cannot be removed
into the Federal court.
1t is in vain for counsel OF the petitioner.
TO insist that. in point OF fact. the state. IN
the trial OF these January issues. does cal
, | upon them 10 pass upon the validity Of the
more recent laws Of her Legislature which
| forbid the receipt OF coupons for taxes
| either for VerifcatiOn or at all n is foi
the Judges OF the courts trying these case,
TO instruct the jures that such questions
. | are not within their oogniZance. II these
judges refuse so TO instruct. then appeal e
the Circuit and Supreme State Courts bein-
| allowed by the act OF 1852 To petitioners
redress would lie in that direction. aud, 3
| | Federal question having been actually
| raised, be ultimately obtainable In the SUI
preme Conrt Of the United states. The rOUf,
TO redress does not lie through the United
. | States Circuit Court by means of removal
We cannot assume here before the
G | trials are had, that the Judge of
. county or corporation court Of the stat,
Will permit a question OF constitutions
: law TO be submitted as a question OF fact u
ajury. We cannot do such violence 10 al
legal probabilities and to all judicial ameni
Ties as TO assume In advance that such
ruling Will be possible. But IL IL be, ther
redress must be sought by appeal ate
the fact. and cannot be given by remova
before the fact.
These cases must all be remanded.
n