The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-04-30

4
| therefore not unconstituiionaL and That
there was no law imposing the lax. which
respondent required the plaintiff 10 deduct
from his coupons, and conss quenftp that re-
spondents first reason for refusing the con-
pons and money in payment OF fs State
taxes ~ unsustained and untenable-
With regard to tbe second reasOy OF re-
spondenf Tor his said refusal, the court s of
opinlop fbat all the questions raised thereby
have been repeatedly decided by this court,
and that his refusal TO receive the coupons
10 question upon that ground was in con-
1ilct with and In disregard Of the decisions
OF The highest Judicial tribunal OF the State,
Which l. clothed with power by the Consti.
tuition OF the State, under which he pro-
lesses to have acted. TO interpret the Consti-
tuition and TO decide all questions arising
under II, and whose decisions are final and
binding upon the people Of the State and
all the departments OF the State. govern
ment and its ministerial officers. These
questions were raised, argued, and decided
In the weli-considereG case OF Antoni Us.
Wright, sheriff, (22 GrattaD. S33 both on the
first hearing and the m)tion for the rehear-
ing. 1t is true, believe. the coupons in
those cases were not rendered in payment
OF the capitation tax. But it was argued
that The law was unconstitntoBsI, because
by It's terms ii made the coupons receivable
in payment OF
CAPITATTON TAXES.
Bot the court decided that it was not un.
constitutional on that ground. The same
question is raised by respondent in this
case, and be iustilies his refusal to obey the
law upon the ground that one dollar OF
the taxes against the plaintiff was n
capitalion tax which he could not receive
coupons in payment Of. Yet there was ac-
tually rendered in money Slip, which ex.
ceeded the amount OF the capitation tax.
But in the case OF AntOni Us. Wright the
coupons were rendered in payment OF
property tax, and it was contcnded that
oue-fifth OF The property fax was dedicated to
the support OF the public schools, and that the
requirement that coupons should be recev-
able IN payment OF so much of the property
tax as was dedicated 10 the public schools
was unconstitutional; so that question was
directly in issue, and it was decided by this
court that the coupons were receivable in
payment OF the property tax, and that the
act OF 1871 was not unconstitutional on that
ground. The respondent In this case raises
precisely the same question, and justitieS
his refusal 10 receive the coupons on the
1879, was unconstitutional, in making the
coupons receivable in payment OF such
taxes, in which he virtually undertakes to
reverse the decision of the court to whom
the power and duty is assigned by the Con-
stitution to adiudge the case, and finally to
settle and determine whether the law is
constitutional or not.
Some years after the decision OF
ANTONI vs.. WRIGHT
reference was made to that case, in the case
OF Wise Brothers and the case OF Maury
ga Gralt.), when the correctness OF that
decision was recognized. Again, in the re-
cent case OF Clarke rs. Tyler, Sergeant
$50 Graltan, 134), the same constitutional
question was again raised rs 10 the receiya.
bility OF coupons in payment OF fines,
which, it was argued, were appropriated by
the Constitution to the public free schools,
and that the act of 1871, in making coupons
receivable IN payment OF fines, was viola
ton OF the Constitution, and this Court
again rtatlirmed its decisions in AntOni Us.
Wright both upon the hearing and on the
motion for a reheariDg. We are OF opinion,
therefore, that the question raised by re-
spondents second reason is no longer an
open question. 1t is res Gdudicdta, and
there is nothing iu the answer OF the re-
spondent or in the argument OF his counsel
that has created in the minds Of the Court
even a doubt as 10 the correctness OF its
former repeated and well-considered de-
csiOns OF the same questions which re-
spondent has thought proper to raise in bis
second reason in justification Of his refusal
TO obey the law and TO receive the coupons
and the money ten1ered by plaintiff in pay
ment Of his taxes.
| deem il unnecessary to
REiTERATE THE REASONS
which sustain US in this decision. They
are fully set out in the opinions deliy-
cred in the trial OF Antoni Us. Wright.
and on the motion for rebearing, TO
which / beg to refer, and also to
the opinion OF Judge Christian, and
also to my opinion in Clarke Us. Tyler,
Sergeant, supra. Those opinions fully
vindicate the decision Of this Court in An.
toni Us. Wright, Sheriff, and were con-
Cured in by a majority OF all the judges
elected to the Court, which is necessary I'M
der section OF Article VI. OF the COnsti-
tuition, "to declare any law null and VOID
by reason Of lis repu9nlnce TO the Federal
Constitution, or the Constitution OF this
State" And consequently these decisions,
by three out OF the five judges elected
to the Court, do establish the c0nstitu-
tionaliiy Of the act which makes coupons
for the interest accrung on the bonds OF
the State, at and after their maturity, re-
ceivable in payment OF taxes. debts. dues,
and demands due The State; and only one
OF the Judges out Of the five elected TO the
Court holding, as cOnscentiously as his
brethren held TO the contrary, that the said
act in that respect Is repugnant TO the Con.
stitution OF the State, cannot declare said
act 10 be null and void by reason thereof:
and majority OF all the judges elected 10
the Court deciding that the act OF 9Th OF
March, 1872, which virtually prohibited the
officers who had charge OF the collection OF
the revenues OF the State to receive cou-
pons in payment OF taxes, was null and
void by reason OF its repugnance to the
Federal Constitution and the Constitution
OF the State, notwithstanding the opinion
OF only
ONE OF THE FIVE JUDGES
elected 10 the Court 10 the contrary. j. con-
stitutionaI avoidance ana annulment OF
said act so far as It was so declared
TO be unconstitutional, null, and void.
| beg to refer to my opinion in
Clarke Us. Tyler. Sergeant, which was con-
cured in by Judges Christian and Burks.
though that does not appear from the re-
port OF the case, for the reasons, which
need not be reiterated here, which think
fully sustain the decision Of the Court, es-
pecially upon the question again raised by
respondent in this case, and shows the fal-
acy Of all the objections urged to the con-
stitutionaliy OF the law upon that ground,
and which foriI6es the reasoning OF Judge
Christian in his able opinion in the same
case. attaining the same result, to which L
beg also to refer.
Upon the whole the Court is Of opinion
hot