The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-04-28

OF facts recited In the act Of Januar
IL, 1892 (the truth or falsity OF which ~
citals, and the motive actuating the Legis
lature, do not inquire into because sucl
inqulry seems 10 me 10 be OF qliestionabl
right in the Judiciary Department., ha'
provided in that act that on the return II
every case n Jury should be empanclleG
In that proceeding TO determine whethc1
the coupon was genuine or no, and tha
the writ (peremptOry) should be awarded
/ or not according 10 the finding, would
such provision have been invalid
IL would have amounted to q plea o
denial, such as every defendant may pm
in 70 an action against him in any case, anc
such in fact as the officer might have
pleaded II he chose 10 do 80 in every pro-
ceeding by mdpddmUS against him prose
cuted under the law a. it stood before tho
late act. This act. rs | understand IL, pro-
yides for just such an inquiry as the one
suggested. II admits the recciyability OF
the coupons. il genuine, in payment OF all
taxes. debts. and demands due the Com
mOnweaitb. The proceeding is 10 deter
miae whether 10 be genninc or not. and
would seem 10 be rs expeditions and etiec-
tive rs the proceeding by m0nddmuS,
where the same matter may be put in
issue-in both proceedings the coupon IS
/ to be received IN payment, il ascertained TO
be genuine.
The issue 10 be framed is whether the
coupons rendered are genuine legal cou-
pons. which are legally receivable for taxes,
debts, and demands" &c. II by this Ian
guage Il is intended 10 submit TO the jury
the question Of the legal validity and re-
ceiyablity OF genuine coupon, / should
be Of opinion that the act could not be sus-
tanned. But this does not appear 10 me to
be the fair construction. Such coustruc-
tion would he wholly inconsistent with the
objects and purposes declared in the pre-
amble. ! take il that the question 10 be
submitted is whether the coupons care
genuine and therefore legal" and . re-
ceiyable." &c.
One Of the most Objectionable features
OF the act would seem TO he that the holder
OF the coupon is required 10 pay his taxes
or other dues in money or its equivalent,
and await the result OF his action to have
il refunded 10 him i'm ease he succeeds in
the action.
But i'm the ease Of Tenn. as. Snecd, 96
L. :. (G Otto), 90, upon which the Virginia
act was ayOwedly framed, the same thing
was required by the Tennessee act. and the
Supreme Court OF the United States did
not consider that feature as inyaidating
the act. although the notes rendered were
receivable there, rs the coupons are here,
in payment Of taxes and other dues 10 the
State. IL would seem that the writ Of
mdnlidmuS was not q remedy against the
State Of Tennessee or its officers ut the
lime the act was passed that made the notes
or bills in question receivable by the state.
Such was not the case here. With Us the
remedy did lie against the officer when the
funding acts OF 1871 aud 1879, respectively,
were passed. But | understand the Su-
prcme Court in their opinion TO hold that
even il SRdnd0nuS had been remedy the
action given against the officer would have
been an adequate substitute. | consider
this case in which, as Judge Lee said in
Eyre rs. Jacob, IL, Graft. 422, "tO doubt
is TO affirm"
| have less hesitation in yielding 10 this
doubt because the decision of the court. in
my opinion. furnishes the litigants an op-
portunity 10 speedily test the correctness Of
the conclusions here on the one side or the
other in the Supreme Court Of the United
States. whose decision, whatever il may be.
must be final and conclusive settlement
Of a much-ycXed question.
I am OF opinion that the pcremptory
lnQpdGmuS should be refused.
Judge Anderson's Opinion.
| am Of opinion that the act Of Assembly
approved January IL, 1882, which is relied
on TO Justify the refusal OF Greenhow
(Treasurer) to receive The coupon rendered
by the petitioner for his taxes due the state,
Is plainly IN violation OF The Constitution
Of the state and OF the United States.
Whilst It's prOiesscd object in il tile is
"tO prevent frauds upon the Common
wealth and the holders OF her securities" !"
il in effect destroys or greatly dcprcciates
the value OF those securities. and thereby
mpairs the obligation OF contracts under
The vain prcteXt that it is necessary 10 pro-
tcct the Commonwealth against frauds. II
not only destroys, or renders almost Nalu-
less the coupons, but also the coupon
bonds. amounting TO millions OF dollars,
issued by the state by authority OF the act
OF March 80, 1871, and whose value delsnds
upon the prompt payment Of interest, OF
which assurance was given by the state 81
the holders OF those bonds, by the stipula-
ton in the contract, that the coupons, at
and after maturity, should be receivable for
all taxes, debts. &C., due the state. This
statute prohibits the revenue officers 10 re-
ceivc any coupon. though unquestionably
genuine. when rendered for or in discharge
Of taxes. &C., due the State. and requires
the bearer Of the coupon so rendered to
pay his taxes in coin, or other currency,
which think is plainly a reputation or
annulment Of the States contract.
am OF opinion that the act provides no
remedy for the enforcement Of the contract
OF the state 10 receive coupons in payment
OF taxes. But that il rcpudiates and an
nuls the same by requiring the bearer and
tendcrer OF the coupon to pay his taxes in
coin, &c. and that it provides n very mad
cquate remedy for the taxpayer 10 recover
his money back which has been wrongfully
extorted from him.
IL authorizes him 10 bring suit against
the State to recover back the money which
he has been wrongfully compelled to pay,
and TO make up an Issue 10 be tried by a
Jury, without any ayerment on the part OF
the State that the coupon he rendered is
spurious, whether said coupon Is genuine,
and not only 30, but whether II is legal,
and not only so, but whether a. IS legally
receivable for tdIeS-and requires the Com
monwealth's attorney or the Attorney
General 10 appear and defend the suit
and allows either party 4 right OF appeal to
the Circuit Court and Court Of Appeals.
This would be poor remedy for the
taxpayer, who had q right by the
pledged faith OF the State, to pay his
taxes IN the coupon which he held,
10 recover back the money which he had
been wrongfully compelled by the State to
pay, which would be usually small, to in
yolye himself in a suit against the State,
with the courts, the attorneys OF the Com
monweaIth, and the Attorney-General all
against him. When such a suit would end,
aud how it would end, especially II the le-
! cal question whether his coupon was ale