Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-01-15

| That tribunal sustained tho act on the
| ground that IL provided an adequate and
| eficacious remedy in lieu of the former
remedy by mandamus TO compel the ac-
csptance OK the coupons for taxes. IL was
supposed by many AZ the time that the
new remedy provided was practically 30
d;iicuit Of application as 10 be little be-
ter than no remedy at all. and the courts
| decision was therefore the subject OF con-
| siderable criticism. But subsequent ex-
per:eucs showed that the court was right,
and coupon-k killer Nc. became n the
hands of the coupon holders 3 source OF
great annoyance to the State.
O:ner questions IN connection WIN tne
RiddieberRer legislation subsequently
arose and will be referred to later on.
Meantime the party which had ali along
| been opposed TO forcible readjustment.
| having for several successive years been
defeated upon that issue at the polls. nad
finally aoQuiesced IN the RIddleberger set
Element. The Legislature chosen e. tne
| fail elections IN 1888, though composed OK
| q majority of members who had pre-
yious'y opposed all schemes of foic,ble
readjustment, proceeded in good faith 70
adopt such additional measures a. seemed
praoticabla TO induce the creditors 10 ac-
cept the Riddlebergsr bill.
To present these measures in detail
would swell this report to too. great
length. Suffice il to say that they were
for the time effective.
During the summer OF 1884 serious
question arose as to the meaning and
true Interpretation Of the Riddleberger act.
Shortly after July l. 1884. J. L. Faure, a
nonresident OF Virginia. applied TO tne
officials intrusted by the Riddleberger bill
with the duty of exchanging the new ior
the outstanding obligations or the State,
to fund into Riddleberger bonds dollar Tor
I III hal hN
! which had matured on and before july 1,
1894. The application was refused. ana
Faure sought the aid OF the United States
| Circuit Court TO enforce 10. The court
granted the order prayed for, directing the
| proper officials tn issue TO Faure the oon-
cations provided for IN the Hiddleberger
bill for the full face value or mis- coupons.
Considerable surprise was created " TINS
decision, for Ii was perceived that under
this construction of the act the interest
bearing obligations of the State might be
increased to several fold the amount.
which in the popular apprehension. II was
intended by the Riddleberger bih to as
sumo. This construction was never acqui-
esced in by the State authorities, ana III
order to meet the difficulty suggested by
it the "Wickham amendment nereihsI-
ter referred to, was passed.
OBSTACLE TO UNLIMITED FUNDING.
A SAOrt tlule atltI luH uetlSiOn Al NH'
Feure case the Legislature met IN extra
session. having been called for the purpose
of enactine an electoral bill. They i'm
medlstely ayaiied themselves Of the OPP
portunity to amend the fifth section OF
the Riddeberger bill. 90 as 20 prevent the
unlimited funding OF outstanding interest
into new bonds. 80.
The amendment made August 27 1884.
was that the date of exchange referred
10 in this act shall IN all cases be taken 20
be July 1. 1882, and no new
bond shall, under this act. be given for
any coupon orinterest on registered bonds,
mentioned IN this section. maturing alter
the LIST day OF July, 1882"
Later in the same extra session, Novem-
Der %. 1884, the Legislature amended the
amendment to the Riddleberger bill above
referred 10. The last amendment pro
yided tina. no allowance whatever should
be made for any interest or coupons TO
mature after January /. 1883. Ana as 10
coupons md interest, accrued or 10 ac-
crue. between January 1, 1883, ard Janu-
sry 1. 1885, both inclusive. ~ was PROVIDED
that such interest and coupons on the ten
forty bonds might be funded into the isld-
dleberger bonds dollar for dollar, and that
such interest and coupons on other bonds
mentioned in the Riddleberger blll might
be funded into Riddleberger bonds az nifty
cents on the dollar.
Numerous cases arose in the courts,
State and Federal, to test tie construction
and validity of Coupon Killer NO. 2. and
the acts supplemental and sncilisry
thereto. 49,
One of these cases psrtoos of the nature
of a mandatory IN JUNCTION, and was 80
, sweeping and comprehensive IN its oblect
"a TO involve consequences OF the most
serious character TO the State, and II sue
/, cessful, 10 Illustrate all the measures
adopted by the Legislature TO prevent tne
, use of coupons in payment OF taxes. Ne
circumstances were as follows Mr. fas,
: sons a nonresident of Virginia, exhibited
his bin in the Circuit Court of the United
, States, alleging that he was the holder o
, genuine bonds and coupons OF the STATE
TO large amount. and fled list oil mi
coupons. identifying them by numbers
: Letters. and dates. He did not pye'ead e
, be himself taxpayer OF the state, ou
alleged that he had made arrangement
with sunday tax- payers to use MS coupons
ia payment of their taxes. by when az
/, rangements ne would receive payment II
large part for mis- coupons.
He further complained that the tax-col
: lectors of the State refused to accept the
coupons for taxes. and prayed Tor an IN
: iunction " 10 restrain them from refusing
TO receive the particular coupons thus
: identified IN payment OF taxes. Inc
court granted the Injunction.
KILLING THE coUPos-RILLgRs.
r Under this decision il was obvious that
an indefinite number and amount OF cou'
e mons whether at the time matured or not,
might be brought into court and identihed
? bv parties. not entitled themselves 10 use
then In pavment of taxes, and an order Is
, sued compelling any and al tax-collecting
oaicars whom the boudholder should
choose 10 cite before the court, TO accept
the coupons 80 identified, matured and a'
thew should mature, In payment OF taxes
| Of sny future holder by whom they might
r be tendered. The Federal courts might III
this way. BY few degrees, compel the &C
ceptance OF all the tax-receiyaole coupons
of the State. az they might contingehty
mature in the future. The presumption
r on which the coupou-killsrs were based
3 was that the ax-payer, in the vast majority
I | of instances. could better afford 10 pay
1 his taxes in money than TO 60 through the
. nrocess required by those acts TO compel
] the acceptance of cOuDons-a process &c
be repeated every year es taxes should 80
crue. and even then available only 10 th'
} taxpayer himself.
/ "coupon- killers" of all practical value
The ASSUMPTION by the Federal courts o.
| this mower to coerce the officers or th'
Commonwealth into disobedience OF bel
, laws greatly intensified the feeling against
, the bondholders.
n NAV be remarked here Though an
: ticipating somewhat that this decision
was reversed in the Supreme Court on th'
ground that the plaintiff, not beng him
self a taxpayer and not seeking TO compe
the acceptance of coupons in payment o
his own taxes, was not entitled TO COM
/ into court to compel the acceptance OF tn
} coupons for taxes Of parties TO whom tn
plaintiff might afterwards assign them
The most dangerous and fatal portion
the decisions TO the interests or the stat
was thus disposed OF.
' The whole class of test cases above re
/ ferred to finally came for review before tn
. | Supreme Court of the United States.
q Ii was commonly believed that the result
q in that tribunal would be Waterloo
I either for the creditors or for the state
a and that all questions between them wou!'
r be finally settled one way or the other.
o TUE oEoUsD TIE STATE BILLED ON.
The principal ground relied on by tn
!, counsel for the State was that all the pro
u ceedincs before the court for review wer
s in effect suits against the State, and henc
! repugnant 10 the Constitution. The bond
n holders. on the other hand. contends
8 that the proceedings were in no sense suit
= against the State, but were against tn