Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-12-29

Sin view of the recent decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States, rela-
tive to the duty of collectors to receive
for State taxes the issues (prior to May 6,
1861, of the Bank of Tennessee, and of
the fact that deposits must be made in le-
gal currency of the United States, and
that you required such deposits to be made
directly in payment of taxes, / en- in
duced TO PROFOUND to you the following
inteITogatOriesl
Il VIII you receive from me as
Clerk, the issues of said bank, when re-
ceived upon proper legal process
%. If you will not receive said issues
directly from me as Clerk, shall make
a special deposit of them in said deposit
oIy2
So. When said fund accumulates,
shall make a special report pertaining
to the same, or shall / embrace an ac-
count of the same when collected in my
regular quarterly report?
Preparatory to collecting State taxes
in these issues, trust that you will
promptly answer these questions, or ask
some instructions from the Legislature of
Tennessee in the matter
In reply, the Comptroller said:
81 am not a receiving officer, nor am
authorized to instruct the revenue officers
of the State to act in violation of the re-
venue laws of the State. / have no au-
thOrity to instruct you, or govern your
collections for the State, when the Legis-
lature is in session, and is preparing
nlOoLsts operdadi by which the State win
take up the notes of the Bank of Tennes-
see. J. has been my opinion all the time
that had no authority TO give directions
relative TO the matter. / therefore, long
ago, called the attention of the Legisla-
ture TO it, and since then having suggest
ed to the revenue officers the propriety of
awaiting instructions from that body.
Having done this, considered my duty
performed, and there | stopped, and there
/ rest the case.
This is an unlooked-for hitch in this
matter 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
tribunal in this country, and that court
decided that the notes of the bank were
receivable, as the charter stipulated, "by
all tax collectors and other public officers,
in payment for taxes or other monies due
to the State" The decision is certainly
explicit ON this point. The court says:
"The State did, therefore, in the charter
creating the Bank of Tennessee, on good
condition, contract with the bill-holders to
receive from them the paper of the bank
for all taxes they owed the State. Until
the Legislature, in some proper way, noti-
fies the public that the guaranty thus fur
nished has been withdrawn, such a con
tract is binding on the State, and within
the protection of the Constitution of the
United States
can attempt is made to restrict the Ope-
ration of this guaranty to the person who,
in the course of dealing with the bank,
receives the note, and not extend it fur
ther. Such an Interpretation would rem
der the guaranty of comparatively little
value, and defeat the object, which we
have attempted to show, the Legislature
designed to accomplish by it. The guar
anty is in no sense a personal one. 1t at
taches to the note-is part of it, as much
so as if written on the back of it; goes
with the note everywhere, and invites ev-
cry one, who has taxes to pay, to take it.
.'If, as we have endeavOred to show,
the guaranty attached to the paper itself,
and could not be withdrawn from it, then
it follows that the notes in circulation at
the time Of the repeal are not affected by it,
and carry with them the pledge of the
State to be received in payment of taxes
by every bona fide holder.
Enough has been said to show, as the
result of our views, that section y of
the charter Of the Bank of Tennessee con-
stituted a contract with the holders of the
notes of the bank, and that it was not in
the constitutional power Of the Legislature
10 repeal the section, so as to affect the
notes which, at the time, were in circUla-
lion. -
We have reproduced these extracts from
the decision of the judicial tribunal of
last resort in this country, to show what
are the rights Of taxpayers in the prem
Uses, for the reason that it has been stated
that the Clerk Of the County Court will
not receive the notes of the Bank of Ten
nessee in payment of taxes, unless com
PEELED to do so by a writ of mandamus.
Ii is the right Of the citizen to pay his
"taxes or other monies due to the Staten
with the notes of the Bank of Tennessee,
and the law is peremptory in declaring
that these notes "shaU be receivable ut
the treasury ofthiS State, and 6y all tar
collectors and other public officers, +" for
the purposes above indicated 1t signifies
nothing that the Comptroller is ''not a re-
ceiving officer, nor that the bank desig-
mated as a depository viii not receive such
notes on deposit, or only as a special de-
post. The Supreme Court of the United
States has decided that the Legislature of
this State cannot pass any law impairing
the obligation of the contract entered into
with the note-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 citizen
who tenders these notes in payment
Of his taxes ''or other monies due to the |
Statc' cannot be held responsible in dam
ages, in the way of costs or otherwise,
while the collector who may refuse such !
citizen thn r,riyiIpUp ITnder tho laws of tho
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 its fiat in regard to |
the binding effect of the contract, and it |
does not require amandamus in every case |
to enforccit, nor docs it require any action
on The part Of the Legislature of this State
to protect the revenue collector in receiv- |
ing Ire notes Of the Bank of Tennessee,
as peremptorily required by the twelfth |
section of the charter of that institution.
Our purpose in calling attention to the |
law governing this case is simply to pro-
tcCt revenue collectors who may act under
a wrong impression of the duty imposed |
upon them by the late decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States.
----@---s
WAS ever a ruler so completely pros
.ralcd at the feet of an absolutist power
As is President Grant to-day at the feet of