VIRGINIA. 



865 



in which the provision of the act of 1873 was 

 inserted. It was the validity of this provision 

 that was presented for the determination ot 

 the Supreme Court in the case of Hartmann rs. 

 Greenhow. The following is the conclusion 

 of a long opinion of the court in which the 

 questions involved were fully discussed : 



The funding act stipulated that the coupons should 

 be receivable for all taxes and dues to the State 

 that is, for taxes and dues owing by the holders ot 

 the coupons, and for their full amount ; and upon 

 this pledge the holders of the bonds of the State 

 surrendered them and took new bonds for two thirds 

 of their amount. The act of 1876 declares that the 

 coupons shall not be thus received for taxes and 

 dues owing by the holders of them for their full 

 amount, but only for such portion as may remain 

 after a tax subsequently levied upon the bonds to 

 which they were originallv attached is deducted, 

 though the bonds be held "by other parties. If this 

 act does not impair the contract with the bondholder 

 who was authorized to transfer to others the coupons 

 with this quality of receivability for taxes annexed 

 and also the contract with the' bearer of the coupon 

 written on its face that it should be received for all 

 taxes due the State it is difficult to see in what way 

 the contract with either would be impaired, even 

 though the tax on the bond should equal the wholo 

 face of its coupons. If, against the express terms of 

 the contract, the State can take a portion of the inter- 

 est in the shape of a tax on the bond, it may at its 

 pleasure take the whole. 



We are clear that this act of Virginia of 1876 (sec- 

 tion 117), requiring the tax on her bonds, issued under 

 the funding act of March 31, 1871, to be deducted 

 from the coupons originally attached to them when 

 tendered in pavment of taxes or other dues to tho 

 State, can not oe applied to coupons separated from 

 the bonds, and held by different owners, without im- 

 pairing the contract with such bondholders contained 

 in the funding act. and the contract with the bearer 

 of the coupons. It follows that the petitioner was 

 entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the Treas- 

 urer of the city of Richmond to receive the coupons 

 tendered to him in payment of taxes due the State 

 for their full amount. 



Mr. Justice Miller dissented, saying: 

 In addition to the general proposition which I have 

 always maintained; that no Legislature of a State has 

 authority to bargain away the State's rights of taxa- 

 tion, I am of opinion that in issuing the bonds and 

 coupons which are the subject of this controversy tho 

 Legislature of Virginia, neither in terms nor by any 

 just inference, made any contract that the bonds and 

 coupons should not be subject to the same taxes as 

 other property taxed by the State. 



Meantime the operation of the funding act 

 as a settlement of the debt question had long 

 since ceased, the compromise plan embodied 

 in the McCulloch bill of 1879 had been reject- 

 ed, the Riddleberger readjustment bill had 

 been vetoed by the Governor, and the ques- 

 tion remained open, and constituted the chief 

 issue in the political canvass of the year. 



A convention of colored people was held at 

 Petersburg on the 14th and 15th of March, 

 which was somewhat divided upon tho ques- 

 tion of supporting the political movement of 

 the Readjusters. This division led to the with- 

 drawal of a portion of the delegates who were 

 opposed to the movement. 



The members of the convention who did not 

 approve of its action entered a protest against 

 it, and issued an address to the people. 

 VOL. xxi. 55 A 



The State Convention of the Readjuster 

 party was held at Richmond on the 2d and 

 3d of June. There were several candidates 

 for the nomination for Governor, the most 

 prominent of whom were William E. Cameron, 

 John E. Massey, J. S. Wise, and V. D. Groner. 

 On the second day, and after several ballots 

 had been taSen, Colonel Cameron received the 

 nomination. John F. Lewis, a Republican, 

 was made the candidate for Lieutenant-Gov- 

 ernor. Captain Frank S. Blair, a Greenbacker, 

 was nominated for Attorney- General. The 

 platform adopted was as follows: 



1. "We recognize our obligations to support the in- 

 stitutions for the deaf, dumb, and blind, the lunatic 

 asylum, public free schools, and government in this 

 State, out of the revenues of the State, and we depre- 

 cate and denounce that policy of ring-rule and subor- 

 dinate sovereignty which for years oorrowed money 

 out of banks, at high rates of interest, for the dis- 

 charge of these paramount trusts, while our revenues 

 were left to the prey of commercial exchanges, avail- 

 able to the State only at the option of speculators and 

 syndicates. 



2. We reassert our purpose to settle and adjust our 

 State obligations on the principles of the " bill to re- 

 establish the public credit," Known as the Riddle- 

 berger bill, passed by the last General Assembly and 

 vetoed by the Governo_r. We maintain that this 

 measure recognizes the just debt of Virginia, in this, 

 that she assumes two thirds of all the money Virginia 

 borrowed and sets aside the other third to West V ir- 



finia to be dealt with by her in her own way and at 

 er own pleasure ; that it places those of her credit- 

 ors, who nave never received but a six-per-cent in- 

 stallment of interest in nine years upon exact equality 

 with those who, by corrupt agencies, were enabled to 

 absorb and monopolize our means of payment ; that it 

 agrees to pay such, rate of interest on our securities as 

 can with certainty be met out of the revenues of the 

 State, and that it contains all the essential features of 

 finality. 



3. We reassert our adherence to the constitutional 

 requirement for "equal and uniform taxation" of 

 property, exempting none except that specified bv the 

 Constitution, and used exclusively for religious, chari- 

 table, and educational purposes. 



4. We reassert that the paramount obligation of the 

 various works of internal improvement is to the peo- 

 ple of the State, by whose authority they were 

 created, by whose money constructed, and by whose 

 graces they live ; and it is enjoined upon our repre- 

 sentatives and executive officers to enforce tho dis- 

 charge, of that duty, to insure to our people such rates, 

 facilities, and connections as will protect everv indus- 

 try and interest against discrimination, tencl to the 

 development of their agricultural and mineral re- 

 sources, encourage the investment of active capital in 

 manufactures and profitable employment of labor in 

 industrial en te rpriscs, gnisp for our cities and for 

 the whole State these advantages to which bv their 

 geographical position they arc entitled, and fulfill all 

 the great public ends for which they were designed. 



5. The Readjustee hold the right' to a free ballot to 

 be a right preservative of all rights, and that it should 

 be maintained in every State of the Union. We be- 

 lieve a capitation tux 'a rotrietion upon suffrage in 

 Virginia, and to bo in conflict with the fourteenth 

 amendment to the Constitution of the Tinted States. 

 We believe it is a violation of that condition of the 

 reconstruction wherein a pledge was given, not to .-o 

 amend our State Constitution as to deprive any citi- 

 zen or class of citizen* of the right to vote, except 

 as a punishment for such crimes as ore felony at com- 

 mon law. We believe such prerequisite to voting to 

 be contrary to the genius of our institutions the very 

 foundation of which is representation as antecedent 



