Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-02-12
rRIpAY.........FE FEBRUARY IL, 1886.
ver,acation of Coupons. &c.

FRIDAY. FEBRUARY IL, 1886.
verihcation of Coupons. &c.
We now have the full opinions OF the
Supreme Court Of the United States IN
the Virginia cases decided by that court
last week. They are exactly what we
have represented them to be. The most
important question settled by these de-
cisiens is that the law requiring the
yerification Of coupons is still in full
force. and is a valid enactment. There
fore we print in full this morning only
the opinions in Sands Us. EdmuHds and
ChoGn rs. Taylor, in which this point
is settled.
We invite the readers attention to
the explicit declarations Of the Supreme
Court on the point mentioned. In
Sands vs. Edmunds the plaintiffs petit
ton for q mandamus is fully set forth in
the opinion Of the Supreme Court. In
that petition SANDS AYERS that he de-
manded that EDMUNDs. county trea-
surer, should receive the coupon ".for
the purpose of Identification and rer'-
feation," as prescribed by the law OF
Virginia, but the treasurer refused to
receive the coupon 81 for any purpose
rhaterer.n But We need not quote the
words of the petition. The reader will
see for himself that the one question
raised in this case was as to SANDs's
right to have his coupon there was but
onel received ".for Identification and
rer,fcatioa." There was no other point
decided in this case.
And what SAYS the Supreme Court?
Read:
~His ISands'sl remedy to have them
received for veri6cation, and to recover
back the money paid for his license, is
secured to him by the terms OF the
act of January IA, 1882, which for
such purposes was upheld by this court
as q valid enactment, in Antoni Us.
GreeRhow."
Therefore the Supreme Court remand
ed the cause to the Circuit Court with
instructions to take further proceedings
according to this opinion" What
will those - further proceedings" be?
Why, the prayer for the writ Of manda-
rus must be granted, and EDMoNDs
must receive SANDs's coupons |" for
identification and verifcation." In
other words, the law requiring coupons
to be verified is not harmed by these
decisions.
In the opinion in Chq6n rs. Taylor
the same fact is made apparent. The
Court says:
"The act of January IA, 1882,
was considered by this court in Antoni
rs. Greenhou, where it was adjudged
that ii WdS not a lar tohich
impaired the obligation Of the contract
under the act Of March 80, 1871"
If it does not impair the obligation
of the contract that law is Of course still
in force.
Why, then, was Judge WELLFoRD's
last decision in Cha6in rs. Taylor ad-
Judged to be wrong? Let the Supreme
Court answer
at 1.-THE defendants rejoinderl did
not deny the genuineness of the coupons
rendered, nor the fact Of tender"
Again The Court says:
"The whole law Of the case
was concluded by the Judgment Of re-
yersal."
Once more
at has long been settled that what
ever has been decided here on one writ
of error cannot be reexamined on q
subsequent writ brought in the same
suit"
In other words, it was too late after
the Supreme Court had sent the case
back, for TAYLOR to be allowed to
plead that the coupons had not been
proved to be genuine.
In Royal rs. The State Of Vrg'"'a'
the only question was whether license
tax stands on the same footing as other
taxes SO far as payment in coupons is
concerned. The Supreme Court decided
this question in the affirmative and we
are inclined to think decided it correctly.
We are not sure for certainly the rea'
soning Of the Court would not apply
N licenses to sell liquor. Mr.. RoYALI
NAV have been. Is the court says. en-
titled to practice law without license
because be had offered to pay hi
license tax in genuine coupons, but i
Mr.. JONES or Mr.. BROWN shall rely
upon that decision to justify him fol
selling liquors without license, HI
win BE- apt to find that be has leanes
upon . broken reed. The Supreme
Court viii stake the back track"
In Barry rs. EdmaHds the only ques
ton decided is that in trespass whsr'
tAs claim for damages is over $500, ant
exemplary damages may be allowed
The Circuit Court Of the United State
n
may have jurisdiction. We say "ma,
have" because, according to the opin
ion, each such case viii stand on II
own merits. For the Supreme Cour
says;
aThe section Of the act Of March
1875, under which the Circuit Cou'
acted in Diminishing the present setio
consers beneficial authority 70 b
vissly exercised In defeating collusiy
ana fraudulent experiments upon II
jurisdiction but the discretion It cor
I 5srs d Judicial, proceeding upon ssce'
1sinsd iscts according TO rules Of Law
and suhjsct to review for appsfer
srrors. For the reasons already sire
A. -A~IA A. roso