Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-03-10
Published as an ADVERTISEMENT


Published as an Ad7orusemontl
To the Editor OF the Di-p1ich:
read The folio wing article in the Peters
burg lndex-Appeil OF Thursday l1s', which
ask you TO publish, with the single stale
ment from me that AN not It's autho-.
WILLIAM l.. Royal.
How the Htate De$radPs Her "bIiGa-
tions and Pcrsecntes Her Creditors
ana Tax-PRyers.
To the Ed tor Of the lndex-AppeaI
In your issue OF February 23d l think you
have done gross injustice WnInteHii0ually,
do not doubt,) TO Mr.. james p. Cooper and
tie co poraiion OF foreign OOndholders, OF
Others. whoever they NAV he, that united IN
his guarantee TO taxpayers vino bought cou-
pnns Of him and rendered teen In payment
Of their tax snd have since been sued by the
State. What are The flcisY Bg the very
terms Of the written guarantee gwen trou-
bic was contemplated, a"d Dir. Cooper
and his associates reserved The right
10 furnish counsel and thoroughly lit
cate any and all questions mat might he
raised. IT the time this guarantee vas given
il WAS not contemplated that the stale wouid
ever sue for Judgment on the tax, the cu.-
ION MS 10 itNN III Aib INift'ih h"fNf 4 N.'
course was pursued bv the state until she
found that for every levy made the treasurer
making II was by the highcs tribunal 10 the
lana held to be a fresp, and compelled 10
answer to the tax payer in damages. ''ne
state finding lnat she could not 10y this
method afford to compel those who bad ten.
dercd coupons to abandon their tender ana
nav in money, resolved, bv an act Of Der
Lecislatu Q, ~ sue the taxpayer for 4
Judgment, aud BY O'her special acts
undertook, in event OF any defendants
to such suits pleading a tender OF cou-
pou., to require them to produce the
bonds. Now ala or nearly all, OF the
tenders were made before the pas
sage OF these so.caled laws, and OF course
the COUPONS baYing been bought on tae open
market det.ched from the bonds, the tax
plycr and those indemnliyin2 him could not
rroduce the bonds. The state, however,
sued the tax-payer for judgment on the
tender, and NJ. Cooper aud his asSOciales eX-
erclsng their express right reserved under
the Indemnity given, furnished counsel and
at their own expense defeudel The action
brought By tie State. / hey plead 90 oehall
OF the taX-payers tender OF coupons and
produced the same IS ard Tor salts.
faction OF the states demand. The state
court, and when | say state court /
mean all OF the courts in The Common
wealth in which these suits were brought,
would not allow any defence 10 he Md I'M
less the bonds were produced. The upons
having been bought on the open market de-
tached from the bonds, Mr. Cooper and his
associates. through couusci. undertook To
prove the gcruineuess % the coupons by ex-
pert testimony. when this right WIS deuiei
them, they appealed. and al their own OK.
pense, h. the United States Supreme court
TO have ;n's and other similar questions judi
cIally determined. The zane counsel at
once petltioned the said supreme Court to
advance aud determine these rights. The
court did advance the eases aud ordered
them IN ne heard ~ october next
| am one OF the taxpayers VINO stood on
the right of tender aud nov nave a
judgment against me, but cannol see that /
or Others under the ind mnuy gwen have
any rIght 10 ask these gentlemen 70 discharl Q
the judgments until they have the appellate
court TO determine the rights oi t3r parties
sud more especially 80 since they have made
rapid progress aud had the appellate court
TO Tx the .bird Monday 10 October mex. as
the time for hearing the same.
Many tax payers manifested an une1siocss
and expressed ieslre 10 have the judy
mems against them satisfied a. once. II |
am correctly Informed SIR Cooper and his
associates Simply said TO these SPECIAL tax
PAYERS the terms upOL when they would
surrender their reserved rights under the
indemnify given and settle these judy
ments. Because these taxpayers saw iii 10
accept this proposition # i by no means any
evidence thst hai they abided the terms Of
their original indemnify that MIR. Cooper and
no 10,
In every particular. For my part believe
they will and regard suco conduct, evidently
dOue FOR the acco umOdatl1n Of these paIticu.
lar parties, a. evidence that they Will. All
we have to do is TO await the decision OF
the cases in the Unned states Supreme
Court set for hearing ~ October next
Now. Mr.. Editor. let us examine the light
the state appears in. She sue, these tax
payers, aggregating throughout the State At
least three thousand persons, and when they,
through counsel. attempted to defend their
suits 10y pleading q tender Of coupons her
court denied them any defence unless they
produced the bonds. Although the coupons
had been bought on the open markets de-
tacned from the bonds under the implied
contract OF the State that they would not be
required to produce the bonds. as but
few could produce the bonds, judgments
we're entered ageinst almost AL Of tue
parties sued with more than SIS OF
costs agains' each one o! them. These iudg-
meets have been docketed, aud, il good iudg-
mems, arc q lien upon all VI tha property Of
the parties. Not being allowed 90 prove the
genuineness OF the coupons By the ODly lCsti-
m0ny accessible to wit, the testimony Of
experts, The usual and customary evidence
ia such case--tbe iSX.psyer appealed few
cases 10 the Urited states Supreme Court. To
determine TINS right a. 10 the residue OF the
cases coupons were rendered 10 payment Of
the executions, including the costs, wDIch by
the very terms Of the iud gment were ia favor
OF the state. The right 10 discharge these costs
was also denied bY the state courts, anu to de-
termiue this right a test case was also appeal.
ed to the nited States supreme Court. Ord
n2rily these cases could not be heard for
about four years, but In view OF the hard
ships OF these cases TO all OF the taxpayers
the counsel petItioned the said Supreme
Court TO advance them. The States Attor-
ney-General appeared for the Commonwealth
aud In her name resisted the motion 70 Tie
utmost Of his power, notwithstanding which
the Supreme court did adyanee them and
ordered them TO be heard on the third Mon.
day in October next. which Il onlg
one week from the first day on which
under the law they could possibly be
heard. II therefore appears that all has
been done on the part Of the taxpayer and
those indcmnlfying bin 10 iudicially defsr-
mue his and the states right, and though
she. being amply protected by her docke,ed
judgments and having done all in her power
to postpone the determination OF the rights
OF the parties, nov reappears aud generally
throughout the state has cOmmeaced an0tber
suit against all The parties originally sued,
md for no other reason than 10 get another
judgment upon the first judgment, aud thus
add Slj or more cost 20 Their liability. This
canuot possibly benefit the state except
through eglog'iou; AMI tbs abuse OF the
law Is 20 punish and oppress the parties sued
because they have chosen 10 exercise a right
guaranteed under the law.
rhe law dces not require these second suits
10 be brought, but authorizes tue kudi,or TO
direct them TO be brought II he choices.
The writer. like many others OF these OPP
pressed tax payers, Il as good Democrat as
any IN the party. but he ia also law. abiding
citizen. aud earnestly protests against the
machinery OF government established in
part by bis vote being used 10 Cypress these
taxpayers in the exercise OF lawful right.
DTafgsso.rr