National Republican., 1883-03-06


debts, dues, and demands due the state.
Under this act many bonds were put out with
coupons, which expressed onStheir face that
they wer6 receivable for taxes.
On the seventh of March, 1872, however,
the general assembly passed another act pro-
hibiting the officers charged by law with the
collection of taxes from receiving in payment
thereof anything else than coin, or treasury,
or national bank notes. The supreme court
Of appeals Of Virginia decided ut its Novem-
ber term, 1872 in the case of Antoni against
Wright, that in issuing these bonds the state
entered into n valid contract with all persons
taking the coupons TO receive them in pay
mont of taxes and state dues that the act of
1879, so far as it conhicted with this contract,
was void and that the writ of mandamus
was the proper remedy to compel n collector,
to accept the coupons in question when offered
in payment of taxes.
On the fourteenth of January 1882 the
general assembly passed another act, entitled
AN act to prevent frauds upon tho common
wealth and the holders of her securities in
the collection and disbursement of revenues"
which provided, among other things, that
coupons should not be received for taxes until
their genuinencss had been established by an
appropriate judicial proceeding, the nature OF
which the act duly set forth.
On the twentieth of March Andrew Antoui
rendered to the treasurer of tho city Of Rich
llull " CuupOu lOf .NJslsl III pUNlutlb % NuNeS,
IL was refused and AntOni potitionod the SUI.
preme court of appeals for u mandamus to re-
quiro its acceptance. That court being equally
divided in opinion on the questions involved,
denied the writ and the case was brought to
this court for review Chief Justice Waite in
delivering the opinion of the court says the
question we arc now to consider is
not whether If tho coupon rendered is
in fact genuine, and such as ought un-
der the contract to be received and
the tender is kept good, the treasurer can
proceed to collect the tax by distraint or such
other process as the law allows, without max
ing himself personally responsible for any
treSpass ho may commit but whether the act
of lsS2 violates any implied obligation of the
state in respect 10 the remedies that may be
employed for the enforcement of its contract
if the collector refuses to take them.
The right of the coupon holder is to have his
coupon received for taxes when offered. The
question here is not as to that right, but as to
the remedy the holder has for its enforcement
when denied. At the time the coupon was
issued there was a remedy by mandamus from
the supreme court of appeals to compel the tax
collector to take the coupon and cancel the
tax. BY the act of 1852 the following changes
are made in the old remedy: First, the
taxes actually due must be paid in money
before the court can proceed after the
collector has signifed in the proper way
his willingness to receive the coupons if they
are genuine and in law receivable; second,
the coupons must be filed in the court of ap-
peals and third, they must be sent to the local
court to have the fact of their genineness and
recevability determined, subject to an APP
peal to the circuit court and the supreme
court OF appeals. AS the suit is for q
mandamus all the provisions of the
general law regulating the practice not
inconsistent with the new law remain, and
if the petitioner succeeds in getting his
peremptory writ he will recover his costs. No
issues are required that it would not have
been in the power of the collector to raise be-
fore the change was made, and there is no adj
ditiOnal burden of proof imposed to meet the
issues, so that the simple question is whether
the requirements 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 eilicacious remedy to compel a tax col
lector to receive the coupons in payment OF
taxes in case he will not do ii without COM
pulsiOn. In the opinion of this court they dc
not.
Inasmuch as we arc satisfied that remedy
is given by the act of 1882, substantially
equivalent to that in force when the coupons
were issued, we have not deemed il necessary
to consider what would be the effect of a
statute taking away all remedies. The judg-
mcnt of the Virginia supreme court of appeals
is affirmed. Justices Field and Harlan dis
sented.
Mr.. JUSTICE FIELD DIssENTs. ...
Justice Field in his dissent says l am
not able to agree with the majority Of the
court in the Judgment in this case, nor in
the reasoning on which IL is founded
The legislation of Virginia which is
sustained appears to me to be in fragrant vio-
lation of the contract with her creditors under
the act of Mar. 80, 1871, commonly known as
the funding act; and the doctrines advanced
by the court, though not SO intended, do, in
fact, license any disregard of her obligations
which the ill-advisod policy Of the legislature
may suggest. | find myself bewildered by
the opinion of the majority of the court.
confess that l cannot comprehend IL, so for
eign does it appear to be to what | have here
tofore supposed to be established and settled
law, aud i fear that it will be appealed
to as an excuse, if not justification,
for legislation amounting practically to the
reputation of the obligations of states AID
of their subordinate icipalities-theil
cities and counties. 1t will only be necessary
to insert in their statutes a false recital of the
existence of forged and spurious bonds and
coupons--as plausible proteXt for such legis
lation--and their schemes of plunder will bC
accomplished. No greater calamity could, il
my Judgment, betall the country than tn,
general adoption of the doctrine that it is no
constitutional impairment of the obligation
of contracts to embarrass their enforcement
with onerous and destructive conditions anC
thus to evade the performance of them. | an
| of opinion that the Judgment of the court o
appeals of Virginia should be reversed anC
the cause remanded with instructions t
award the mandumus.
THE OTHER CASES DECIDED
are as follows: No 1866, Orsor Adams, substi
tuted for George l.. Bowden, as receiver o
| the First National bank of Norfolk, Va, ap
pelant VS.. Jacob g. Johnston and Betsy Val
| entine Appeal from circuit court of the
| United States for the district of New Jersey
! Decree reversed with costs and cause re
manded with directions to enter decree il
conformity with the opinion of this court
| Opinion of Mr.. Justice Blatchford. No. %
John n. Cushing ct al. appellants VS.. Johl
Laird the younger, ct al. Appeal from the cir
cult court OF the United States for the southern
district of New Yoak. Decree affirmed witt
costs and interest. Opinion by Mr. Justic
Gray.
No. 49, j. p. Giraud Foster and Jane
Thomson, garnishees, appellants, VS., John
Cushing ct al. Appeal from the circuit cour
of the United States for the southern distriC
of New York. Decree affirmed, with cost
Opinion by Mr.. Justice Gray.
No. 81. James ID. Russell ct al, appellants
VS.. Anne X. Allen OF al. Appeal from tn
circuit court of the United States for tl
eastern district of Missouri. Decree u
iirmed, with costs, Opinion by Mr.. JustiC
Gray.
No. SO. Wallace s. Jones, executor, &c,
al, appellants, vs. WIN. n, Hahersham an
NVn, Huutpr pygcutors Nc. ADDcal irD