Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-05-16
Onr "Pnfriotic EdttoriaI.n
IA Editor Of the Disnatch :

To the Editor OF the DlSpatch:
In YOUR patriotic editorial Of yesterday
morning you say: "The members OF
the Council OF Foreign Bondholders
are confident that the supreme Court
OF the United States will next Octo.
Der give them such footing rs will
enable them to coerce the Commonwealth
into the acceptance OF the terms they LAST
offered or even OF terms more unfavorsble 10
her. We know not what reasons they have
for their conf lent expectation OF decision
favorable to their hopes from that high
court"
ANY such expression OF cou6denceis bluff.
The points in issue before the Supreme
Court do not justify any such expectation,
even II they should be decided in their favor.
Mr.. Royal says there are "four cases i'm
yolyipQ all the essential Questiens-to wit,
the duty to produce the bond. the admiSsl.
bility OF expert evidence, and payment Of
costs In coupons" all questions arising I'M
der the cOupon-crusber.
Now suppose the supreme Court shall de-
eide that the State has no right 10 demand
production OF the bond, nor TO exclude ex-
pert testimony. Why then the Legislature
10 assemble next winter will define expert
TESTIMONY" and there will then be another
case for the courts.
by statute, bet Is merely a matter Of judicial
construction. The construction given by
Judge Atkins admitted men who were mere.
ly experts In handwriting 10 prove the gems
umess OF engraved or Autographed sigma
tures. IL was In order 10 crush this bit Of alb
surdity that the Legislature took the short
| cut OF refusing 10 permit experts 10 testify IN
coupon cases. But II can exclude these So
called experts inst a. effectually by o statute
| defining expert testimony. Though even
| thst can hardly be DeceSSary since. Judges
! Atkins aud Latham have been left Of The
bench. The only thing approaching expert
testimony ever given In the coupon cases
was by Mr.. w. T. slnons, june %, 1885, in
| the Hastings Court. He testified that IL was
| impossible TO tel whether the Virginia cou-
| pOns were genuine because they had no
| loritisn signature, but only an engraved or
autographed fac simiLe-or forgery OF
written signatures.
Mr. Roysll tad the decision Of the Su.
preme Court would practically end tins pro.
trscted litigation for one side or the other.
| That may be the case for bis side, but II eau
not be for the State, which Mr.. Royaii has
proclaimed TO be standing on her last leg"
| There are many things vet between the state
aud the seventy or eighty millions which YOU
rightly say these men vii! claim under such
a settlement as they demand. and Mr.. Royal,
II be persists, will find this State to be Gen.
iipede.
1 am delighted 10 see that YOU say: "If we
were county or corporation judge no per-
son within the jurisdiction OF our court
would be recognized as ct person 10 sell
liquor who bad tired TO pay bis taxes In cou-
pons." Ia that you have touched chord
10 which every true Nirginian's heart will
respond with patriotic tbrob.
| What II Mf. cooper. the English ally OF
The Virginia compromises. does say be will
pay this year about $l25,0c0 OF State taxes In
coupons. What becomes OF the rest OF them
This Is but drop IN the bucket. The annual
crop Is about million, the amount now past
due is about $4,000. 900, OF which Si25. 900 Is
about one iortisth part. or, to the bondboId-
ers one cighlieth part II they can stand
that we eau. s'r