The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1888-12-20
Coupon Litigation.

lowing report OF coupon litigation III the Z
Supreme court of the State: a @s7ef5.'+ lS~a
Yesterday the case of Cooper against
the Commonwealth and other similar cases
we're decided by the Court of Appeals.
Cooper.was sued in the Circuit Court OF
this city by the Commonwealth to recover
the sum of $20.S4 for license taxes for
transacting the business of broker AT
the trial the defendant pleaded that he had
dvly rendered in payment of the taxes sued
for tax receivable coupons cut from honds
OF the State. issued under the funding Dill t
% OF 1871. which were refused by the collect
ing officer of the State and which he
brought into court. These facts were
moved by the evidence, and also that the /
coupons in question were bought by the
defendant In open market in London. lie
also proved that he was not the owner OF
the bonds from which the coupons had
r. been cut. and that he did not know VINO
owned them, and that, he was unable 10
= produce them. The Commonwealth there
npon called upon the defendant reproduce
the bonds, and the defendant moyed the
1. court to override this demand on the
ground that the act of fhe General Assems
bly approved January26. 1856, under which
the demand was made, was .repugnant 10
that article of the Federal Constitution
which declares that no State shall pass
any law impairing the obligation OF con-
tracts. But the Court ruled that the act
- was valid, and sustained the demand ana
1hereupon Judgment was rendered for the
q Commonwealth, from which Judgment
the defendant appealed to the Court OF
III Appeals. alleging that the act above men
k toned was unconstitutional and void.
= The contention of the appellant was that
when the State issued her bonds, With
negotiable and tax-receivable coupons
thereto attached she, er ri te'ma"s con-
tracted that they might be separated one
from the other, the coupon coming to be
b. owned by one person whilst the BOND
might be owned by another in separate
jurisdiction, without any connecting INK
whatever between the two persons; that
this being SO, she necessarily oarfed her'
self from any right to demand from the
person holding the coupon the production
of the bond from which it came IN any
issue between herself and the coupon
holder, since in many. ard in most cases.
it is manifestly and in the nature of things
impossible for the coupon-holder to pro
dGce the bond. ss..
The Court, however, affirmed the Judg-
ment, holding the act valid, upon the au-
thority Of Commonwealth VS.. Weller and
other cases reported in 81 Virginia re-
ports. ear
Judge Lewis dissented. He said that,
according to his Interpretation of the Con-
stitution of the United States, which, as
ajudge of the State of Virginia, he had
been sworn to support, the act was utterly
repugnant to that instrument, and there
fore imperative under the circumstances
disclosed by the record; that if the State
can require the production of the bonds IN
question under such circumstances by
the coupon-hoder when brought by her
into court as a defendant, be saw no rea-
son why the Legislature may not cut the
!. Gordian knot of the debt question at
once by making it a capital felony for any
man, woman or child to buy coupon, or
even to be seen with coupon in his or her
possession. That, be said. would be a
cruel measure, but. in This judgment, no
more unconstitutional than the act in
question under the circumstances men,
toned. To call such an act thekvalid ex-
.ercise of the undisputed power which the
Legislature possesses to prescribe rules of
evidence, in the courts of the Common
wealth, he declared. was worse THAI a
mockery; that it is, to all intents and pur-
poses. cutting up by the roots sacred con-
tract rights-call it whatever you please
and no less offensive to his notions of
constitutional law than what he regarded
as fair dealing between man and man. He
3 was therefore of opinion that the judge
ment should be reversed. i.szt
.sis- The other judges concurred in the opin-
ion of the court delivered by Judge Lacy.
~ When the case of Commonwealth vs..
Weller and other cases above referred to
were decided two years ago Judge Lewis
g was detained from the court by illness, and
hence took no part in deciding those cases.
T. Waynesboro Items.
Reported for the yiRGINIAN.
A son Of Mr. Marion Coiner is very low
with typhoid fever. 1t was reported Sun.