Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1880-03-02

III one OF our editorials on thursday
last, we introduced a view of the debt
discussion that had not before that time
been brought into it that we know of,
which is one of such great consequence
that we feel called upon to state and en-
| force it again. 1t is this: The Riddle
berger bill prohibits tax-collectors from
receiving coupons in payment of taxes.
Now, this very same prohibition was
enacted into statute in 1872, and the
| Court of Appeals in Antoni Us. Wright
decided that it was unconstitutional and
veid. 1t will, therefore, be no more a
law when passed now than it was when
passed then, and any tax collector who
has coupons rendered to him in pay
ment of taxes, and refuses to receive
them, will be wrong doer, and will
have upon his shoulders all the subse-
quent responsibilities that may grow out
of his act.
| Now let US see the practical operation
of the thing. 1t IS to be noted, that it is
no sort of consequence to the taxpayer
whether his taxes are paid or not. All
that he is concerned about is, that he
shall make what is a proper and Valid
tender of payment of them, and il pay
ment IL refused, hla concern with the
matter il ended. Therefore, when Mr..
hiddleherger deprives him of the writs
by which he can force the collectors to
take coupons (supposing that he could
do so, he has not done thing that con-
Germs the taxpayer; ha has done that
which giYes him Joy, because that vii,
have depressed the market val.:e of cou-
pons when no comes 70 buy them. If
rendering coupons in payment of his
/ taxes is the cheapest way by which he
can tender payment Of them, the tax
payer will be certain to tender it in cou-.
pohs. Now, after he has made his ten.
der, if the collector dare levy on his pro-
perty, that collector will bea trespasser,
and the taxpayer has every right to
treat him as such. He may sue him for
his trespass, or he may defend his pro-
perty from his levy, with arms, Il neces-
sary. We will sucrrcse that good citi-
gems generally will decline to take this
course, relying upon the previous deci-
sion of Antoni Us. Wright, but will wait
until there shall be G decision upon the
new act itseif.
Some citizen will tender coupons, the
treasurer will refuse to receive, and will
levy for the taxes. The citizen will sue
him for his trespass He must defend
himself by showing that he acted under
the mandate of the law. This brings
| the question of whether the act ia law
or not law directly hesnTo tho COURT
| Under 4G$ana vs.. fright the court is
That is notice TO all the world that the
treasurer who attempts to act under it
is trespasser, and that the citizen has
the right to defend himselfa and his pro-
perty against hi:a. How many treas
ureEs will refuse coupons after that or
if they refuse them, how many will take
the hazard of levying after tender of
them Rich. Comm onUedlh.
How IT WoULn orERATE.-Now, let
rs seo one Of the practical operations of
Mr.. Riddleberger's bill. Suppose it
passes, the Governor approves of it, and
it becomes g law so far as the Legislature
Gal make it one. A. will tender to the
treasurer coupons in payment of his
taxes, which he will have the right to
deprived him of all writs by which he
can force the treasurer to take the cou-
pons from him. Having rendered the
coupons, A. will have done his duty
all that the law requires of him-and it
will be matter of no consequence to
him from that time forward whether
his taxes are paid Of not. If all tax
payers do the same thing, collection of
taxes must cease, and all will be certain
to do it, provided MI RiddIeberger's
bill has the effect he hopes it to have, of
depressing the market value of coupons,
unless the treasurers choose to under
take the dangerous experiment OF levy.
ing for taxes upon the property of citi-
Zens who have made a valid tender to
them. In which case A. will sue the
treasurer for trespass. If the law is
void law, then the treasurer Will have
been trespasser; if g valid law, he will
not have bean trespasser. This ques-
tiGn will go in that suit, to the Court of
Appeals, which, under the decision in
Antoni vs. Wright. will be bound to hold
that the law prohibiting the treasurer to
receive coupons is void; that A. did his
entire duty when he offered coupons;
and that the treasurer, when he levied
on AS property, committed a trespass.
How many treasurers will there be in
the State, after that decision, that will
dare touch a mans property? The de-
cision will be notice to all the world
that a treasurer who refuses coupons and
then levies on property Is trespasser,
who can be mulcted in damages for his
trespass, and against whose trespass the
citizen has the right to defend himself
and his property with arms, if neces-
sary. After few treasurers have been
sued and few more shot we expect Mr..
Riddleberger will begin to sea that his
"Bill to Re Establish the Public Credit"
is a failure for all purposes except to get
treasurers into bad fixes and we rather
think that the prohibition to receive cou-
pons will be about equivalent to suspen.
sion of the collection of revenue.-Eich.
| Commonwealth.