"The ratio decidendi in this class of cases," the opinion continues, "is very plain. A defendant sued as a wrongdoer, who seeks to substitute the State in his place, or to justify by the authority of the State, or to defend on the ground that the State has adopted his act and exonerated him, cannot rest on the bare assertion of his defense. He is bound to establish it. The State is a political corporate body, can act only through agents, and can command only by laws. It is necessary, therefore, for such

The law of 1882 having been held void, the State next passed an act requiring the bond to which it had been annexed to be produced when a coupon was presented in payment of taxes. By another act was also prohibited the testimony of "expert" witnesses as to the genuineness of the coupons. These laws the Virginia court held constitutional.

In McGahey v. Virginia52 when the State brought suit for taxes against certain individuals who had tendered payment in coupons but had not produced the bond to which they had been attached, as provided for by the Virginia law, spoken of above, the Supreme Court held this provision unconstitutional as an unreasonable condition, and, therefore, as impairing the obligation entered into by the State in 1S71. "If enforced," said the court, "it would have the effect of rendering valueless all coupons which have been separated from the bonds to which they were attached, and have been sold in the open market. It would deprive them of their negotiable character. ... It would be so onerous and impracticable as not only to affect, but virtually destroy, the value of the instruments in the hands of the holder who had purchased them." In like manner the provision prohibiting expert testimony establishing the genuineness of the coupons was held unconstitutional and void. Also was held unconstitutional, as unreasonable, the law which the State had passed requiring for the sale of coupons a license fee of one thousand dollars in towns of more than 10,000 inhabitants, and of five hundred dollars in other counties and towns, together with an exaction of twenty per cent. of the face value of every coupon sold. A law fixing a limit of time within which the coupons should be presented or tendered in payment of taxes met a similar fate. In 1886 Virginia had passed an act providing that any lawyer who should give his professional services in matters pertaining to payment to the State of coupons for taxes or other demands, should be adjudged guilty of barratry and be disbarred. and that any one not a lawyer, who should tender advice or assistance in reference to these matters should be held guilty of champerty and subjected to a fine of three hundred dollars and imprisonment for sixty days. In pursuance of this law it became known that the grand jury was considering indictments against a Mr. Royall, a lawyer who had been for years identified with suits brought to compel the acceptance by the State of the coupons of the bonds of 1871. Thereupon Mr. Royall published a letter in which he asserted that the law in question was unconstitutional and that he would sue for damages any member of the grand jury who should find a true bill against him for a violation of it Upon this, the grand jury reported that it had sufficient evidence to indict Mr. Royall, but that in view of his threats, it would not return a true bill against him. A Virginia court thereupon fined Mr. Royall for an attempt to intimidate the grand jury, and in default of payment of the fine committed him to jail. Mr. Royall sued out a writ of habeas corpus to a federal court, which discharged him upon the ground that it was a right of a citizen of the United States to sue, or threaten to sue, whomsoever he pleased. The final judicial phase of the controversy was brought before the Supreme Court in the case of McCullough v. Virginia,53 a case which has already been considered in the chapter dealing with the Obligation of Contracts.54

52 135 U. S. 662; 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 972; 34 L. ed. 304.