Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-12-31
TENNESSEE MoNEY.
The Op.y Of Tax Collectors Considered
Can They Refuse the sspdats Of the ST.
prems couFt2

Can They Refuse the gsudats Of the su-
prems couFt2
The Nashville Union and American Of
Wednesday says: The Clark OF the
County Court of Davidson county
has announced it his purpose not to
receive b notes of the Bank Of Ten
Dessee in payment of lakes due to the
State. The grounds of his refusal NAV
be gathered rom the following interroga-
tories ~propounded TO him by tho Comp
t~roller:
by tho act of tho Legislature of Ten
nessee, passed March l., 1865, I am re-
quired TO deposit all due the
state with the depository designated by
law, which is the First National Bank OF
Nashville.
"In view of the recent decision of the
Supreme Court of the United states rela-
tive TO the duty OF collectors TO receiye
for State the issues tprior to May =,
1867 of the Bank of Tennessee, and OF
tn fact that deposits must be made in ie-
gal currency of the United States, and
That FOL required such deposits 20 De
made directly in payment OF taxes, l am
induced to PROFOUND TO you the follow ny
undergraduates:
81. VIII you receive from me as Clerk,
the issues of said bank. when received
upon proper legal process2
-. If yOu Will nos receive said lss les
directly from .ne as Clerk. shall / mate ii
special deposit of them ia said depositOy ?
"3. When said fund -accumulaJes, I'll
1 make a special report pertaining ;Ot he
same, or shall l embrace an aCeours OF
the same when collected in. my regular
quarterly report?
=. Preparatory to collecting State t3tss
in these issues, I trust that you will
promptly answer these questions, o. ask
some Instructions from .Ae Legislature of
Tennessee in the matter
In reply, the Comptroller said:
81 am not a receiving officer. nor am I
authorized TO instruct he ven officers
of the State to ac1 in violation OF the rev.
enue laws Of the State. 1 have no author
ity TO instruct you, OF govern your coIlec-
tons for the State, when the Legislature
is in session, and is preparing a NsOdHs OPP
erandi by which the state viii Cake up
the notes of the Bank OF Tennessee. Il
has been my opinion all the time that I
had no authority to give directions reIa-
/ tive to the matter. I therefore, long ago,
called the attention OF the Legislature o
it, and since then have suggested TO the
revenue officers the prOpriety Of awaiting
instructions from that body. Having
done this, I considered my duty per
formed, and there 1 stopped, and there l
resi- the case"
This is an unfooked-for hitehin this mat
ter of paying taxes with the notes Of the
Bank of Tennessee. A test case has been
taken up TO the Supreme Court of the
United States, The highest Judicial tribu-
nai ia this country, and that Court de-
cided that the notes Of the bank We're re-
ceivable, as the charter stipulated . by al
Tax collectors and other public officers, in
jho state" The decision is e manly o.
pIicit on this point. The Court s4Fs:
The State did. therefore, in theeharter
creating the Bank OF Tennessee. on good
condition, contract with the biii-holders 20
receive rom hem the paper Of the bank
for all taxes they owed the STATE. UnUl
the Legislature, in some proper way, notI-
iss the putlic that the guaranty thus fur
nished mas been Withdrawn, sued u con
tract is binding ON the State, and within
the protection q Tie Constitution OF the
United States.
An attempt is made to restrict the
operation of this guaranty to the person
who, in the purse of dealing with The
bank, receives the note, aud not extend
it further. UGH an interpretation would
render the guaranty of comp tralively
little value. and defeat Jhe Oh sct whicn.
we nave attempted Jn show, toe LegiSia-
Z LuAO uUcAzllCA 90 HCLDiAl lAAeu Nv IL. me
guaranty is IN no sense q personal one.
1t attaches to the uCte-is part of il. as
much 50 as ii written on the back ofit:
7 goes with the note everywhere, and in
/ vites every ole, who has taZcs'EO pay, t.
takeit.
"If, as we have ~endeavored to show.
the guaranty attached TO the paper itself.
n could not be Withdrawn from it, then
I IT. fOIlOurs that rhn puraa I'm .fror Ta-sor- of
the time of the repeal are not affected by
it, and carry with them the pledge OF Tho
State to be received in payment of taxes
by every IONA fde holder. r
-" Enough has been said to chow, as the
result Of our views, that section u of the
charter of the Bank of Tennessee cOnsti-
tut6d a contract with the holders Of the
notes of the bank, and that It was not in
the constitutional power of the Legisla
tUTe to repeal the section. so as TO affect
tie notes which, at the time, were in cir
cIistiOu."
We have reproduced these extracts from
the decision of the judicial tribunal of last
resort in this country, 70 show what are
the rights of Taxpayers inthe promises,
for the reason that il has been stated that
the Clerk of the County Court viii not
receive the notes Of the Bank of Tenuassea
in payment OF taxes, unless compelled to
60 so by a writ Of mGnddmus. It is the
right OF the citizen TO p4Y his taxes or
other monies due to me state with the
nOles of the Bank of Tennessee, ana the
law Is per mptoTy in declaring that these
notes ss.ShGJ be Teceicable at the treaSurU0f
this State, and bg all tax cyHsctOrS md
other pu6Lc cf6cerS." for the purposes
abOvs indicated. II signifies nothing that
the Comptroller is not q resolving
officer - nor thutthe baniz designated as q
depository will not receive zach notes on
deposit, or only as a special deppSit. The
Supreme Court of the Uuileo States has
decided that the LEGISLATURE Of this state
cannot pass any aw impairing the obli-
CATION OF the contract entered into with
thet n~Oto-holders. The tax collector
runs no risk whatever in receiving The
notes of the Bank Of Tennessee in pay
ment of taxes due to the State. The citi-
zen who tenders these notes in payment
of his taxes I" or other MONEYS due to the
State ," cannot be held responsible in
damages, in he way of costs or otherwise.
while the collector who may refuse such
citizen the privilege under the laws Of
the state for which he applies. certainly
does it at his personal peril. if the citizen
shall thereby sustain damage. The court
/ of last resort has issued IFS fat in regard
To the binding effect of the contract, and
1t does not require a mandamus in every
case TO enforce it, nor does it require any
ac5ion on the part OF the Legislature Of
this state to protect the revenue collector
in receiving the notes of the Bank often
nessee, as peremptoriiy required by the
twelfth section of the charter Of that in
stitution. Our purpose in calling atten-
ton to the law governing this case is
simply to protect revenue collectors who
may act under q wrong Impression -0ftAe
duty imposed upon them by the late de-
[ cislOn OF the Supreme Court oft United
states.