The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-05-20
ROUGH ON OLD VIRGINIA.
COUPONS MUST BE RECEIVED FOR
STATE TAXES.

Liquor Licenses and Special School
Taxes Can't be Liquidated With
Them, However-Tenders Need Not
be Accompanied by an Exhibition
of the Bond-The Court Bored.
WASHINGTON, May 49, - The United
States supreme court to-day rendered opin-
ions in several Virginia coupon tax cases.
These cases present new phases of the pro-
longed litigation between the state and her
bondholders. A considerable part of the
time of the court for several years has been
taken up with this question, and each case
decided has had the result only of bringing
up new ones. The court evidently is tired
Of the controversy, for there was a
very distinct intimation in the conclusion
of the opinion rendered by Justice Bradley
to-day that the state and bond holders
should settle their differences, and that
there should be no further exhibitions of
the controversy that has become a vexed
question"
THE PROPOSITIONS ESTABLISHED.
The court began its opinion by stating
that whatever the individual opinions of
the members of the court had been, it
could be regarded as clear that the follow
propositions have been established:
l. That the act of 1871 constituted a contract
between the state aud the holders of the bonds
and coupons issued hereunder.
2 That the various state statutes passed for
the purpose of restraining use of the coupons
for the payment Of taxes and other dues to the
state and imposing impediments and obstruc-
tons to that use and to proceedings instituted
for the purpose Of establishing the genuineness
of the bonds do in many respects materially
impair the obligation of that contract and can
not be held to be valid.
B. That no proceedings can be instituted by
any holder of state bonds or coupons against
the commonwealth, directly or indirectly, or
suit against her executive officers to control
them in the exercise of their official functions,
as they are agents of the state
a. That any lawful holder of tax receivable
coupons who tenders such coupons in payment
of taxes, of debts due the state, and continues
to hold himself ready to tender them is entitled
to be free from taxation on account of
such taxes and debts, and may vindi-
cate such rights in all lawful
modes of redress by suit to recover property or
injunction where the taking of property would
be attended with irremsdiable injury or by
defense to any suit brought against him. No
conclusion short Of this can be legitimately
drawn from the previous decisions without
wholly overruing and disregarding many rul-
ingS, a thing the court would be very reluctant
to do. Exceptions may arise and these will be
considered according to the particular circum-
OTHER CASES TAKEN UP.
The court then took up the cases Of Joseph
Bryan, James P. Cooper, and John
McGahrey against the state of Virginia.
The point in these cases is as to the validity
of the state statute requiring that in all
tenders of coupons for taxes it shall be nee
essary in order to prove the genuineness of
the coupons to produce the bonds from
which they were cut, expert and other
t.asnr h.
inadmissable. The court holds that
this requirement of the production of the
bonds is an impairment of contract and
unconstitutional. It would render coupons
not negotiable. II they were once cut from
the bonds and sold from hand to hand, it
would be impossible for purchasers to find
the bonds or bondholders and produce them
at the trial of every case.
MAY BE USED TO PAY COURT FEES.
In the case off H. w. Ellet against the
state, which was next taken up, the ques-
tion was whether coupons could be rendered
in payment of court costs. it being con-
tended by the state that they could
not, because the costs were compensations
due officers. The court holds that although
the costs were the officers compensation
they were due the state in consequence of
its liability TO pay its officers, and therefore
payable in coupons.
AN ILLEGAL LICENSE.
The next case, that of G. II. Cuthbert
against the state, involved the constitution
atty of imposing license tax of from $500
to 81 900 aud 20 per cent. of all sales upon
coupon brokers' The state was beaten in
this suit also, the court holding that the law
was an unreasonable regulation amounting
to prohibition of sale, and therefore an i'm
pairment of contract.
In all these cases the Judgment of the
supreme court Of appeals of Virginia was
reversed.
NOT RECEIVABLE FOR LIQUOR LICENSES.
The court affirmed the Judgment of the
United States circuit court in the case of
Thomas s. Hucless, plaintiff in error, VS..
John K. Childrey, collector of taxes, to
recover damages for the refusal of Collec-
tor Childrey to receive coupons in payment
of liquor license. The law required that
this license should be paid in money, and
the court held that this does not impair
the contract Of the bondholders. Licenses
for liquor selling, it says are not only
imposed for the purpose OF raising revenue,
but also for the purpose Of regulating the
traffic. The state may for this purpose i'm
pose such conditions as it may deem to be
for the public good. 1t may prohibit the
sale, or require any amount of licenses. 1t
could, if it saw fit, require license to be paid
very different if the business were Of an
ordinary character.
SPECIAL SCHOOL TAXES.
The state also won the case OF George 8.
Vashon against Samuel G. Greenshaw,
treasurer, in which the Judgment of the
Virginia court Of appeals was affirmed. The
question in this case was whether a special
school tax could be paid in coupons. The
contention of the state was that the Vir-
ginia constitution adopted in 1869, two years
before the act of 1871, creating the bond
holders contract, created special school
fund and required it to be kept separate aud
distinct from other state funds. The
court holds that, as coupons could not be
used In that fund for the purpose of carry
ing on the public schools, and as the legis-
lature was directed by the constitution to
keep that fund intact, the contract between
the bondholders and state would be repug-
nant 20 the school tax article of the consti-
tuition. 1t is to that extent void, and the
state is not bound to receive the school tax
in coupons.
Justice Bradley rendered the opinion of
the court in all these cases.