Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-05-20
THE COUPON CASES.
The United States Supreme Court
Against The State on All Points.
TIE DECISION RENDERED. YESTERDAY.
Not an The Gases Adverse, However, as Up.
pcan Below.
Some. on Special Grounds. Arc Decided I'm
Favor of the statc--Abstracts
of the Opinions.
lpr tolarrnnn 10 me pl.rntch.l


wtsrNGrov. May i9.-The United States
Fur.euc Court to-day rendered opinions
IN .b. s.vcrI Virginia coupOn-tax cases.
t.f... cases present new phases OF the pro.
lnn.r4 tgetion between the State and
lrhauuloidcrs.
s considerable part Of tho time Of tho
Court f-f several years has been taken uD
N,lf. tI.. question. and each case decided
d. bad tho result only If bringing up new
,nrs Tho Court Is evidently tired OF the
CONTROVERSY. ior Shore was a very distinct
inttuatIoa IN the conclusion Of the opinion
rendered by Justice Bradley to-day that
o.. State ana Ter hundhOiders should set
tho.r differences and tha. there should
1, 80 further exhibitions of a controversy
Shat nas become % vcyltlOn."
Iho Court began T. opinion by stating
tlli utatcgfr the individual opinions Of
fn.fsl,r- ol fue Court had been ia could bc
ro.a.ao., o. clear that the following propo-
a.oge have been established
I.r.f gbsf rae act q 1874 constituted q con-
t-a.i b. .tvoeu .ne state Gnd the holders Of bonds
1aI coupon. i@uoi hereunder.
-.cln4. nal thc various statutes passed for
NH it g.sc ~ restraining tho use Of cou-
r... flr fhe payment 81 taxes ana o;bcr
D..s tp tle ~iatf. and Imposing impcdimonts
enc ob.'raeiious 3 that use and 10 proceedings
f1.l..lei Tor fhe purpose u establishing me
t.. IHDnnss oi tho tonfs. DO in many respects
materially impair tlc obligation Of that contract
nf "lulnf 20 httl 10 tf Ful1.
IfIl. That no proceedings can De iuglitu;ed
~ AVS holder ~ >iafo bonds or coupons against
t. Common realtE directly or indirectly by suit
against Dor OK soI,Ho officers 20 control them 40
Ila exercise OF their Onlclal functions O. agents
rf Ir State.
I.a-h Ihs' any lawful holder Of tax-ro-
s..trffn coupons Who topdcrs such coupons In
1Rsut3t ol fE."s or debts duo tho state and
,.... aI.rs i0 hold himself rcaiy Go tender them
5. euttI.1 fu he FREQ from inoe7tation nn account
e.. tt.-uNf. of debts ana may Flnfi ave such
D $40 I'D nll lnEfui modes Of redress by SUIT 70
recover property or 90 recover DAMAGES by pro-
rrfrr fgkeu by injunction where tho taxing ~
llo property would ue attended with lfreme-
ciap.o injury or by defense TO any suit brought
Grsinsf him.
>1c,uclusion short Of mis- can he lcgtmately
drawn from previous decisions without wholly
,rtrruliug Fn1 d.srcoarilng many rulings.
f...r tfA Court would Go worry reluctant @ DO.
IE..p ioral ,asos may arise aud these Will be
..r.il.re1 HceocIiug 20 tho particular circum-
fDncos involved.
JOSEPH BRYAN TT AIS. va. 9rE STATE
The Court then took up the cases Of Joseph
1rau, Jtnee T.. Cooper. and John Nc1ahoy
aeausi 100 State = Virginia. Tho point In
f.... cases D. t. o. tle validity Of the state
t.4tIio uiuug Thar ga all tenders 0f coupons
fnr taXfz Dr. shall he necessary in order 20 prove
fur c,uutuorcs- ~ tie coupons 10 produce no
bonds from which they were cut, expert ana
other evidence being declared O. be- inHdmissi-
llo. The Court holds ihnt this requiromontot
80. proil. ton Of tao bonds is an Impairment u
rr rlu.fa.t aui pnrOus utltionaL J. "ould ron
..r r1lIous not negotiable. II they were once
rut FROM tho bont- and sold from hand to haad
81 would Boz impossible for purchasers 10 hnd mo
torI. or iouIhoilcrs and produce them at tho
tIai q every case,
CoCroVs FOR COsTs.
In iocase u II. W. Klloit against tho State,
which was next taken up, the question was
Nl,fl"r coupons could DO rendered IN payment
Df rou. costs. 30 being conicndcd 10y mo Sta'o
=. at hoy could not. because mo COSTS we're COM
l,.uaainu duo tho on .crs. Tbs Court holds mat
although the costs were officers compensation
flay wore duo the state iu consequence OF itS
liability % pay its onlcsrs, ana, therefore, pay
etic IN coupons
THE IICFNsT-TAX CASE.
Tho next case, C. H. Cuthbert against tho
fltn, Involved the constltutiOnaiity Of imposing
q iiceuse-taE Of from $50 20 $1,000 ana Of aOper
cent of all saios upon coupon-trokefA Inc
stale was beaten ia this suit also, tho Court
holding ttat tho law was en unreasonable regu-
tau0u amounting 10 prohibition OF nc sale o.
these coupons, and therefore an Impairment OF
IN an these cases the judgment o. tho Supreme
Court Of Appeals Of Virginia was reversed
THE STATE WIS CASE.
Tho Court affirmed the Judgment Of tho Cnlted
states Circuit Court in tho case of Thomas :. hu-
clo--. tlAirtiu 10 error. rN John Is. ChiidIoy'
Collie. tor oi Taxes, o. recover damages FOR tho
rafusnl ~ thUIrry f1 rcrciyo coupons IN pay
Jnrut OF UluoI-liceu- Tho low required That
tlia license should DO paid in money, and the
No.rt holds uIat tl.s docs not impair tho con-
trnft Df fhr b1udlollcrs. Licenses Tor liquor
triiDR, - says, are not only lmpo'e1for inc pur-
pose of raising revonue tut also for the purpose
ofrcc.iHl.g she traffic state may Tor thiS
luffu,e impose snrh conditions a5 % may Doom
1.r t.rI public good. 10 may prohibit the s6le or
1ellii. ans amount of license. IL could, II IL
rav &c. require the license O. be paid In gold,
r.lsu-, ur diamonds 10 would be very dihcront
~ no Business we're Of on ordinary character.
t>oTHFR c,sE FOR TIE STATE.
Tho >flre also won the case of George = (