Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-02-14
sUEDAY.....FEBRUARY IA, 1886.
BANKRUPTCY Threatened.

The Averment tnat the united ctates
Supreme Court has decided that the
State Of Virginia has no right to re-
quire the coupons cut from her bonds
to be proved to be genuine before she
receives them for taxes is exactiy.
equivalent to maintaining that that tri-
bunal has decided that the Statsssesss
bound to receive counterfeit sNs .',ronu
for that purpose. There is no differ.
ence in effect between .,bo.a ,vo ,s.
sertions. Either ~ s. .".'' ~. wv -.
s ~ - bs - all the coupons ten
,;vbt 20 n (Fifsd, or else she has no
veriHed u oquire any Of them to be
course the Supreme Court has
Fer rendered any such decision.
Doesn't every man in Virginia know
that in .lntoni rs. Greenhow that court
decided that the act requiring coupons
to be verified was not law impairing
the Obligation of q contract? Doesn't
every lawyer know that the Supreme
Court has no power to declare a law
null and void for any other reason than
unconstitutionality? Doesn't every
lawyer know, therefore, that q law
which the Supreme Court has decided
to be constitutional, and which the
Legislature has never repealed, is still
in forcef
When was the act Of January, 1882,
pronounced constitutional by the Su-
preme Court? We reply that this was
done more than two years ago, and that
ever since that decision was rendered,
the State has required the coupons to
be verified in her courts, and no bond
holder's-lawyer has ever dared to ap-
peal to the Supreme Court ofthe United
States to have the decisions Of the
State courts reversed. Why haven't
the bondholdsrs had this question re-
opened?, Because they know that the
Supreme Court will reaffirm its deci-
sion in Anfoni re. GYeenho,o that the
coupons must be verified.
Look at the opinions in Sands rs. Ed
munds and Chc6in rs. Taylor, printed
by US last Friday. The point decided
in the former case was that SANDS had
right to have his coupons received by
the county treasurer for verifcation
and the Supreme Court remsnded the
cause to the court below with instruc-
tons to proceed according to the opin-
ion. In . word, the Supreme Court
ordered . proceeding to be had undey
the law of January IA, 1882, and t'tpS
in effect ordered the coupons to-, ~ mus
fed. Isn't it mere trifing ''e verl,
to sayethat the court hsff 10 pretend
asides--a law underxoE set that law
the court below ta-s< which it orders
A. ;-.<~. .araso'proceed?
thn Sands as. Edmunds the Su-
4.isme Court declares the law requiring
coupons to be verified valid enact
ment, SO in Chc6in rs. Taylor, the same
court declares that it had years before
adjudged that NOT to be law which
impaired the obligation Of contract.
The lawyers acting for the bond
holders in Sands rs. Edmunds did not
pretend to deny the constitutionality of
the law requiring coupons to be veri-
fed. On the contrary, they not only
recognized 1t as a valid enactment but
claimed its protection, and the Supreme
Court ordered the court below to see
that SANDS was protected under that
Law.
In none Of the cases decided last
Monday week was any question pre-
scented for decision IS to whether the
State had the right to require coupons
to be verified ; but in the opinions it is
assumed as settled that the State has
that right.