Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1886-02-05
VIRGINIA COUPON DECISIONS.
UNITED ACTION OF SUPREME
COURT.

I UNITED AtllON bf SOIhL4hi
COURT.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1.-The gen
eral press dispatches furnish full
report OF the decision of the Su
prcme Court announced to day il
/ the Virginia coupon cases. \ brle
review Of what IS understood to bt
/ the effect of the decisions will be o.
interest, and as no dissent was eX
pressed from the bench, the judg
ment Of the court Is accepted as
unanimous. In the case of Barry
VS.. Edmunds, where a horse of the
/ plaintiff was sold for $50 taxes after
the tender Of coupons had been re.
/ fused, the court Teverses the de
cision of Judge Bond, of the Unit.
ed States Circuit Court, and de-
cides that the plaintiff is entitled
to yindcatory or exemplary dam
ages. The other three cases all re-
! fer to The license tax, tender OF
which was made in coupons and re-
fused, and the parties proceeded
against under the State law. In
the first case, that of Mr.. Royal,
who was indicted and fined for
prac-icing law after refused to pay
his license tax in any other mode
than by the coupons, the
court reyerses the decision OF the
Court of Appeals Of Virginia, and
decides that Mr.. Royal had the
right to go on with his business
In the case of Sands, the court
decided in effect that any one en-
gagged i'm business for which a
license tax is demanded may, if he
elects TO resort to that process,
force the tax collector to take his
coupons rendered for license tax rs
such business for Identification and
Notification under the act of Jan.
II. 1852 In the case Of Chailin,
whose horse was sold by the tax
collector for payment of license tax
after said collector had refused the
tender of coupons, and whose light
10 damages therefor the court de-
cided last spring to be valid, the
court now holds that the judge of
the Circuit Court of HenricO COun-
IL should have given Judgment for
plaintiff after said decision, and 1t
commands him to give judgment
for plaintiff now, and have his dam
ages assessed by a Jury. The Su-
preme Court in its illusions to the
acts 81 the Virginia State officers
uses some strong language, and the
inference very properly is that the
court does not propose to allow any
triliing with its mandates, and that
United States judges and United
States commissioners in Virginia
will be expected to punish to the
full extent of their powers those
who so offend. Mr., w. l.. Royal
was asked after the decisions of
the court had been read from the
bench how he regarded them. He
said he looked upon the decisions
as giving the coup de grace to the
population State legislation. le
SAID it protects the small taxpayers
who have heretofore been in fear of
the State officers. All persons
upon whom a license tax was i'm
posed could now tender payment
in coupons, which the State officers
could refuse if they chose, but they
would not now dare to modest those
who rendered them. lie said the
receipts from licenses amounted to
nearly a million dollars yearly, and
The action of the Supreme Court
to-day would wipe this out entirely.
Several of the prominent members
Of the original readjuster party of
Virginia said the democrats could
not take any backward steps now,
as they would be afraid of losing
the State in consequence. The
next move, they thought, would be
toward absolute reputation. Sen
atOr Riddleberger was asked for an
expression Of opinion. He said :
81 am not simply gratified at the
decisions, butcan say | am rejoiced.
The bill which is sometimes called
after me, with its so-called coupon.
killers, stood the test of court scru-
Tiny, and in the United States Su.
preme Court there was but one
dissenting justice to the principles
upon which it was based. have
not doubted at any time that the
IcenSe.taX law Just passed upon
would tall. 1t was the same in
principle as the first legislative en-
actment to uprOOt the funding bill
of 1871, which was passed upon by
our own State courts. From the
inception of this license.tax law |
have written and spoken against it
az one that would necessitate new
legislation. Only last week ! wrote
an article beseeching the present
General Assembly to repeal it, and
] was assured that my suggestion
had been considered with much
seriousness. But it was too much
of concession to make. These
decisions in nOwise affect the Origi-
nal bill. They merely separate the
license paying from the property
paying, aud the law was shrewd
device to get the Virginia debt
question back to the courts, as it
in 1884.
"These decisions will put the
Bourbon Legislature on the de.
fensive, and all of us who adhere
to the settlement Of 1879 will avail
of the opportunity to explain the
Stiffness OF the supplemental legis.
latiOn-undcr what influences it
was enacted-and the result may
he guessed. think there will be
a new ministry formed in Virginia
very soon. No talk Of reputation
will swervc us from our well-con-
siGered course. Virginia, owes
two.thirds of the bonded debt, and
She has enough Of honest people to
insist upon paying it.'
Mr.. William G. Elan, late editor
Of the Richmond wing, has been
to "A position on the
Baltimore Amcricaa at salary of