The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-03-10

due must be paid In money before tbe oour,
can proceed after the collector has sionificd
IN the proper way his willingness To receive
the coupons IL they are genuine and In
law receivable; second, the counons must
be filed in the Court OF Appeals: and.
third, they must be sent 10 the local co,rt
to have the fact Of their genuinencss and
| rceeivability determined. subject IN an an.
peal To the Circuit Court and fhe Sunreme
Court OF Appeals. As the suit is for n
/ mdnddmuS all the provisions Of the general
| law regulating the practice not inconsistent
with the new law remain, and IL the pcti-
tloner succeeds IN getting his peremptory
/ writ he will recover his costs. No ISSUES
are required that ii would not have been
IN the power OF the colectorto raise before
tnc change was made, and there is no adj
ditlonal burden OF proof imposed 10 meet
the issues, so that the simple question is.
/ whether the requirement Of the advance Of
the taxes, and the change OF the place and
manner OF trial, impair the obligation OF
the contract on the part Of the State TO
/ furnish an adequate and e1licaclous remedy
4 10 compel taX-collectOr TO receive the
coupons in payment Of taxes IN ease he
will not do il without compulSion.
/ |. ~ 10 the payment Of the taxes in adj
vance.
I In this connection it must be borne in
mind that the legislation, the validity Of
which is involved, relates clone TO the col
/ lection OF taxes levied under the authority
OF the state for the purposes OF revenue.
PromplnesS in the payment Of taxes by the
citizen is as important as promptresS by
the state in the discharge of its own obi
cations: in fact. ordinarily the Last can
Z L.. wit
der the revenue system OF the United
States the collection OF the revenue in
the manner prescribed hy law cannot
he restrained by judicial proceed
ing. The only remedy for an ilc-
ga cXactiOn is payment under protest
and suit 10 recover back the money paid
The reason j. that ~ it is necessary the
government should he able TO calculate
with certainty on ill., revenues, il is better
that the individual should be required TO
lay what is demanded under the forms OF
/ law. and sue to recover back what he pays.
than that the government should bc cml ar
rISsed i'm It's operations by stay OF collec-
ton.
II i to be noticed also that the law which
authorized the issue OF the bonds and c0u-
ponS did not IN express terms provide that
the c0uron-holdcr should have the remedy
OF mQHddmWS TO compel the taX-cOlicctOr
TO take his coupons. His claim TO relief i'm
that way rests alone on the fact that when
his coupon wa, issued mdaddmUS was an
existing form OF action i'm the state, which
the courts have decided was applicable to
such case. What the Legislature has
done is only to say that before this
remedy can be rCsoTted 10 the amount due
for taxes shall he deposited in the treasury.
That being done. the suit may 20 ON. II
i'm the suit il shall be determined that the
coupons rendered are genuine and in law
receivable. The collector will be required to
accent them. and the money VIII be re-
stored. If, however, the judgment l.
against the coupon-hodcr. the faxes will
be paid. and The state Will have suffered no
Inconvenience for want OF It's Just revenues.
Looking at the case, therefore, a. one al
fecting the collection OF The public revenue,
we cannot see that The requirement Of the
advance Of the take, rs a condition 10 the
employment Of the remedy is such IN i'm
plirmcnt OF the contract - makes the re-
quirement invalid.
,. A. to thcchangc IN the place and mode
oil trial.
We cannot think this of itself inyahdatcS
T.
concerned. it simply takes from the SUI
preme Court OF Appeals jurisdiction for
the trial of the questions OF fact. and con-
fers precisely the same jurisdiction upon
another court. with ample provision for
appeal. so that in the end the authority OF
fine Court Of Appeals NAV be invoked on
all matters OF law. The courts on which
the new jurisdiction j. conferred are re-
Ill nd
the trial il TO be had i'm the county where
the faxes are TO be paid. Il is difficult to
see how this impairS in any manner either
the adequacy or the efficiency OF the original
remedy.
Then H. TO the manner Of the trial. The
deposit OF the coupons with the Court OF
Appeals. if the suit is to go Oh, cannot be
considered unr6as onable. II the trial bad
been conducted under the old law the cOu-
mons would have to be at some time sur
rendered. and the precise stage Of the case
in which this is to be done is by no means
important so lar rs the present question j,
concerned. Neither does the positive re-
quirement OF an issue as 10 the genuine
ness and rcceiyability OF the coupons and
a trial 10y Jury affect the validity OF the law.
Under the old law this same issue might
u y
required. IT certainly j. not IN impail-
mcnt Of an old remedy TO make that inn
pcratiye which before was Discretionary.
Without pursuing the subject further.
we say that in our opinion the fourth see
ton Of the act OF 1852 doe, not impair the
Obligation OF any contract which the state
has made with the holders OF it, interest
coupons.
After this suit was begun, but before it
was fried. the General Assembly OF Viz
GINA amended the section OF the Code con-
forring jurisdiction on the Supreme Court
OF Appeals in suits for m0pdamaS, so that
/ it now reads a. follows:
" CHAPTER l0.-An ACt to 1mend anil Re-
Cnact Section !, chapter 1856, Of the C0dc
Of 1873, IN Relation to UdaddmVS. Pro-
hDtion. &c.
-. BE 1t epactcd by the General ISSem-
blu Of I'ugiaid, That chapter lJG. section
!. oil the Code OF Virginia OF 1873, be
amended and recnactcd so a. TO read a. fol-
lows
"S4. The said supreme Court, besides
having jurisdiction OF all such matters a.
are now pending therein. shall have iuris-
dlction TO issue writs OF mdHddmtS and
prohibition to the circuit and corporation
courts. and to the Hastings Court and the
Chancery Court OF the city OF Richmond, and
i'm all other cases in which il may be neces-
saIy to prevent failure OF justice, in which
a 1aandGmuS NAV issue according to the
principlos OF the common law, provided
that no writ Of mdHddmuS, prohibition,
or any other summary process whatever
shall issue i'm any case OF the collection or
attempt TO collect revenue, or compel the
collecting officers to receive anything in
payment Of taxes other than as provided in
/ chapter II, Acts OF Assembly, approved
January 20, 1882, or in any case arising
ont Of the collection OF revenme in WHICH