Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-09-19

servers vi hnlmhlos thSh o'oS"SS't ""'
the methods adopted by them in their
instinct to cure themselves, and have
ayailed Of the knowledge so brought
under their observation in their practice.
Reconciliation I'm virginia and Eng-
land.
To the Editor of the Dispatch:
The British bondholders and their
agents here have frequently told us
that the bad faith of Virginia in the
matter of her debt was without prece-
dent in England, whose public faith
was sacredly kept; and they have en-
larged upon the disastrous influence
spOn public and private credit of that
denial of our debt which they are
pleased to term reputation.
1t gives me pleasure to throw some
more light upon that matter by briefly re-
citing the facts of famous English
case, whose final decision in their courts
was nearly identical with our own /;
though it does not appear that it stood
upon the same ground Of equity. 1t is
known as
THE BANKERS CASE,
and, under the title Of The King against
Hornby, will be found in 5 Modern
Reports, page 90 to page GO, inclusive,
and more fully in State Trials, Volume
XIV, page to page ia, inclusive. The
case, condensed from the books, is as
follows:
After the Restoration it was usual
with a few great bankers, who were
then, for the most part goldsmiths, and
took money on deposit for loan, to
lend the Crown large sums on the
credit of the incoming taxes, or Of the
hereditary incomes, which were pledged
for that purpose. The confidence with
which this was done was increased by
a proclamation of the King, in 1907,
that he would not, en- "any occasion
whatever" suffer an interruption of
payment of these dues out of said
taxes so pledged. Nevertheless, in
lG7l, when the debt was above a mil
lion Of pounds sterling, and was due to
some ten thousand persons, the King
did make default in payment.
IN THE YEAR 1872
an act Of Parliament took from the
King the Court of Wards and Ligeries
together with certain other feudal privi-
leges, and in lieu thereof settled upon
bin, his heirs and successors forever,
/. c. in fee-simple, a certain part Of the
excise-tax of the kingdom upon beer,
ale. and other liquors, estimated at
100000 per annum. The sums due
the bankers were officially ascereained,
in 1876, by the Kings command, at the
Treasury aud the evidences of in-
debtedness were surrendered upon the
agreement that they should have granted
to them instead thereof annuities out of
this hereditary excise equal to 6 per
cent. per annum interest on their seve-
raj debts; but redeemable on payment
of the principal-G per cent. was then
the usual rate of interest. This was in
1917; and the annuities were paid I'M
til 1853. But in that year this interest
became IN arrears, and so remained I'M
til the Goth Of December, l70l.
In the year 1850 suit was brought by
petition to the Barons Of Exchequer for
the payment Of these arrears. Against
payment, by judgment Of that court,
two points were made by the Attorney
General First, whether the grant out
of the excise was good second whether
a petition to the Barons OF the Ex-
chequer was proper remedy. On the
first point the court agreed that the
grant was good on the second the
Judges were unanimous that the emedy
was proper. ThereupOn the case was
taken up on writ Of error 70 a higher
CONT, the Court OF Exchequer Cham
her. There the majority agreed that
the grant was good. but divided upon
the mode Of remedy-one q them
(Chief.Justice Treby) arguing that
THE KINGS REVENUE
could not be reached by q proceeding
against one of his officers, and taking,
in regard to that, pretty much the same
ground that Chief.Justice Waite took
in ADtoni rs. Greenhow, lO7 U. s.
Rep, 100, in deciding that Coupon
Killer No. / was constitutional, and
that Mr.. Justice Matthews took in the
same case when he said that State
officer was, quoad hoe, the State, and
could not be sued in other words,
that the practical effect Of coercing a
receiving officer Of the Government " is
to control the action Of the State in the
regular and orderly administration OF
its affairs ~; and contending that the
true remedy was by petition to the
king las it would be here to the soper-
eign State of Virginia). Lord-Keeper
Somers, who concurred in this view,
and afterwards argued it deliberately
before the House Of Lords, claimed the
right to reverse the judgment of this
court and that point having been de-
cided in his favor by the twelve judges,
seven to three, he did reverse it.
After this in 1899, the case was taken
by appeal to the House of Lords, which
reversed the judgment Of Lord-Keeper
Somers, and decided in favor Of the
bankers in January, 100. But it was
enacted in the same year-l2th aud
18th William Ill.,, chapter Is, section
Is, that in lien and. discharge Of thu
perpetual annual payments, and Of al
arrears thereof granted by King Cha les
the Second out Of the hereditary excise,
the said excise should be charged nth
the payment Of 8 per cent. per aanuD'
on The principal sums due to the. re.
spectre patentees, aud subject to be re-
deemed on the payment Of a mOisty OF
the principal sums mentioned IN taid
act.
The sum due on these claims al