The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1882-05-04
JUDGE ANDERsoN's OPINION,

I am of opinion that the act of Assembly, approx
ed January a. 1882, which Is relied or to JUSTIFY the
refusal of Greenhow Treasarer) to receive the
pom rendered by the petitioner for his the
State, is plainly in violation of the Constitution of
the State and of the United states. Whilst its pro-
fessed object in its title o prevent fraud upon
the Commonwealth and the holders of her securi-
ties, 1t in effect destroys greatly depreciates the
value OF those securities and thereby impairs the
obligation of contracts under the vain pretext
it is necessary to protect the Commonwealth against
frauds. 1t not only destroys, or renders almost
valueless the coupons, but also the coupon bonds,
amounting to millions Of dollars, issued by the
State by authority of the of March So 1871, and
whose value depends upon the prompt payment of
interest," of which assurance was given by the State
to the holders OF those bonds by the stipulation in
the contract that the coupons at and after maturi
ty should be receivable for all taxes debts &C., due
the State This statute prohibits the revenue ofice
to receive any coupon, though unquestionabIy gen.
uine, when rendered for or in discharge of taxes.
&c, due the State and requires the bearer of the
coupon SO tendered to pay his taxes in coin other
currency, which think is plainly reputation or
annulment Of the States contract.
am of opinion that the act provides no remedy
for the enforcement OF the contract of State to
receive coupons in payment of taxes. But that 1t
repudiates and annuls the same by requiring the
bearer and enderer OF the coupon to pay his taxes
coin, &C., and that it provides very 1nadeouate
remedy FOR the taxpayer TO recover his money back
which has been wrongfully extorted from him.
IL authorizes him to bring suit against the State
to recover back the money which he has been wrong
fully compelled to pay, and to make up an issue to
be tried by a jury without any ayerment on the
part of the State that the coupon he teEdered spu
rious whether said coupon is genuine and not only
So but whether legaLy receipable for tares-and re-
qutres the Commemorative Attorney or the Attor-
new General to appear and defend the suit-and al
lows either party right to appeal to the Circuit
Court and Court of Appeals. This would be a poor
remedy for the taxpayer, who had a right, by the
pledged faith of the state, to pay his taxes in the
coupon which he held, to recover back the money
which he had been wrongfully compelled by the
State to pay, which would be usually small to in.
volve himself in suit against the State, with the
COURTS the attorneys Of the Commonwealth, and The
Attorney General all against him When such a
suit would end, especially If the legal question
his coupon was illegally receivable for tax
es, debts and demands was to be left to Jury
would be involved in great uncertainty To get back
his pittance of money wrongfully extorted from
him, he would have to subject himself to harrass
ing, protracted and expensive litigation, with all
the chances of success against him for the reasons
stated, and incur COSTS perhaps, tenfold the amount
he sought to recover.
Can such remedy be regarded as an ADEQUATE
remedy, in the place Of his remedy by ynomdo1nzs
which the law guaranteed to him at the time the
contract was made, and which had been the law of
Virginia from very early period, and which also
provided the means whereby the State couldtest
the genuineness OF the coupon If she denied It's gen