The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1885-03-05
Mr.. wise's Letter.

it had been brought against GreenhOW
alone. Such suit would not, we venture
the opinion. been entertained by the Court,
for the very reason Mr.. Wise indicates in
his letter. The Parsons suit was brought
chiefly against Auditor Marye, anda range
of subordinate officers were joined as de-
PENDANTS, to make it more practicable
for the court to devise a remedy such as
was suited to the case. Having the audi
tor IN court, of course Greenhow could be
protected froms such results. as are con-
ceived in Mr.. Wise's letter. Mr.. Wise
has leape to conclusion, or, in other
words. gone off half-cocked.
BY the funding. bill of 1871 the State
made contract with her creditors. who
would fund under that act, and provided
for coupons on the new bonds issued in
pursuance of the act, which she agreed to
receive for all debts and dues to the State
including taxes Of all descriptions. The
present Constitution, adopted before the
funding bill was passed, dedicates certain
! revenues to the public schools. It was
claimed that the funding bill could not
appropriate these revenues to the eredi-
tors by means of tax-receivable coupons.
| when the Constitution had dedicated them
to another specific purpose. Our Supreme
Court decided differently the cou.
pons were receivable for all taxes, and that
the State had made a contract to that eff
feet. The operation of this decision was
destroying the public schools, impoverish-
ing the charitable institutions and bank.
rupting the treasury, inasmuch as the leg
islature refused to increase the taxes to
meet the demands upon the State, includ.
ing the interest on the public debt. 1t was
in this condition of things that the Rid
dleberger legislation was enacted. The
point was to arrest the coupon in its work
of absorbing the revenues before they
| reached the treasury and at the same time
not to violate the contract feature Of the
bill of 1871. The Riddleberger legislation
did not say the coupons should not be re-
ceiyed for debts and dues to the State, but
! it did prescribe the mode in which they
| should be received-after their genuine
ness had been proved in Court-the State
having the right to appeal each case
through all the courts. This legislation
was adjudged constitutional by the SUI
preme Court Of the United States. 1t left
the coupon holder his remedy under State
laws, and as it did not impair the contract
he was compelled to proceed with his cou-
pons as the State provide. There was nc
reputation either of the contract feature
| or the coupons in this.
The Legislature of 1854, however, did
repudiate both the contract and the cou
pom. 1t enacted that nothing should be
received for license taxes but gold. silver,
treasury notes. 1t outlawed the coupon
as to license taxes. 1t took away the rem
edy the coupon holder had in the State
| courts, and to all intents and purposes was
out right reputation.
In this state of facts Parsons, who held
large amounts of coupons clipped from
State bonds, sought relief in the Federal
Courts, as there was none to be found in
the State Courts. The Court entertained
his suit and decided that his coupons
must be received for taxes. The court
could have done nothing else according to
our view. We are not lawyers, and knSSZ
very little about the lawyers distaet
between mandamus and circuitous injunc-
ton restraining the officers Of the State
from refusing to receive the coupons. But
it is very plain to our mind that to assail
the decision Of the Circuit Court is to en-
dorse and approve an attempt at repudia-
ton. 1t is tantamount to endorsing the
legislation of 1884, repudiating the cou-
pons and repudiating that of 1882, which
the United States Supreme Court pro-
nounced valid and not reputation. Mr.
Wise may draw his legal distinctions as
fine as he pleases and entertain lawyers
with his legal disquisitions, but the COM
mon sense fact remains that in assailing
the Court, he is defending reputation, and
placing himself in accord with the Dis
patch and the legislation of 1884, which
practically annulled the legislation Of 1882.