The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1885-03-05
Hon. John S. Wise on the Bond
Hughes Decision.
To Me Editor fine Dispatch

70 me 1tdttor OF The Dispatch;
Several gentlemen have called my attention
10 the puDlcation in your paper and others Of
my remark that l could drive n horse and
wagon through the decision lately rendered by
the Federal Court in Norfolk on the coupon
case, and asked for my views.
did make the remark, and am til Of the
opinion that the decision is erroneous. II had
supposed it would be published perhaps | would
have expressed the idea in terms more respect
full to the Court and BETTING The magnitude of
the subject
But with all proper respect for the tribunal
rendering this decision and the learning of the
judges composing it. believe, as a lawyer. that
they erred both in the practice and in the prin-
ciples of the case.
AS question of practice / do not believe it
was case in which the remedy by injunction
was applicable, but the discussion of that ques
tion would be too technical to be Interesting
to the general public. and think the
which all readers Will recognize, whether
they be professional non-professional per-
sons-is in the effort the decree makes o COM
pei a mere agent to do that which his princi-
pal who cannot be reached, will neither sane
ton nor recognize
1t is not necessary TO discuss how far the suit
against Mr.. Iinsley, taX-eolector of Richmond,
is a suit against the state. | have no doubt
that u Is SUIT against the state under the cir
cumstances OF this case, and have no doubt
that the Supreme Court of the United States,
in the light of its decision lately rendered in
the case or Cunningham rs. The Railroad Com
pany, will so decide. The case last named + E.
viewed fully all the suits Heretofore sustain ed
against agents of the State and clearly init
mated that some of the decisions had gone
further than was justified by sound law The
decision rendered concludes with remark that
from what 1t had said the futility of the efforts
by courts to make q State pay its debts other
wise than in the way it proposed was apparent.
But OUTSIDE OF all this the proposition involv-
ed IN the decision rendered Mt Norfolk is SIM
ply this:
That a court of equity may perpetrate the
outrage of giving party relief against
agen acting within the scope of his authority
for the wrongs OF his principal without being
able to protect thar agent against his princi-
H ere is Mr.. Tinsley, who has no authority to
collect taxes at all save what he derives from
the State of Virginia rs its agent, and no
thority to collect in anything but what his
principal directs 1.-The is ordered to collect in
money the state of Virginia can refuse to ac-
ccept from him anything else and hold him
bound for the amount in money Of all taxes for
when he has given receipts. Ii is admitted on
all hands that this is his situation, and it is
also admitted that the Federal courts cannot
compel the State of Virginia to do otherwise by
any process within its power.
Yet the decree rendered compels Mr.. Tinsley
to take coupons for taxes and give receipts
therefor or 90 to Jail. The result is that the
decree makes Mr.. Tinstey bay the debt of Vir-
ginia or 90 to iail because he cannot pay it,
1t is a delightful alternative presented to him,
making his plight as miserable as the position
of the court is ridiculous and outrageous. The
court knows the debt is not his, and yet it
knows it cannot make his principal either re-
SpOnSible to the SuttOr or to him for what it re-
quires him TO do.
The order entered, if enforced, can only result
in bankruptcy or incarceration OF man who
owes the SuitOr not one dollar, and never
reaches the real defendant-the State of Nir-
sinia.
The theory of equity is that it affords COM
plete relief. Where complete relief is lmpossi
sible relief is not granted if in giving relief
one party to the cause the injury inflicted on
another is as great the relief afforded and
cannot be redressed. Again, it is a nursery
maxim of equity that he who seeks equity
must do equity. I might quote many other
maxims of like import but forbear, MS the
above are enough to show how the Federal
court has made q gross blunder when, in the
effort to redress the supposed wrongs of this
sutton at the hands of the State of Virginia, il
has entered decree that does not touch the
State of Virginia by q boW-Shot, but seizeS an
innocent third party and presents to him the
alternative of beggary and bankruptcy or in
generation for a debt he does not owe. The
mere fact that he is n taN-cO Hector does not
alter the case. The decree is as erroneous as if
it had been made against the first man that the
court could lay its hands upon i'll the public
streets, and doubt not that if Mr.. TnsIey files
his petition in the cause showing the misera-
BILE plight the court places him in by the order
the judges will see the ridiculous position In
which the decree has placed court delighting
in the name and practice OF equity, and do the
only thing left to them--viz., retreat in cOnfu-
sion from position which they cannot sustain
for moment on the principles of common
sense. common law statute law. constitutional
law. Or equity.
If they do not so retreat they must as believe
beyond doubt, be reversed upon appeal, for the
amount involved in the decision to the petit
TONER TinSley is greatly in excess of S0,OO0.
This litigation does not grow out of the Rid
dleberger settlement. If that had been left
alone these suits could never have arisen. The
present troubles grow out of unwiSe changes
made i'll the law at the last session of the IegiS-
lature by those who had so lately become con-
verts to the principles of readjustment that
they did not understand how to apply them IN
the laws framed Respectfully,
JOHN $. WISE
Richmond, February q. 1855,