Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1883-03-06
THE VIRGINIA COUPON CASE

| court in the land so decides
THE VIRGINIA COUPON CASE
Chlel Justice Waite in the [ s. Supreme
Court yesterday prepared and read the
opinion which embodied the decision of the
court in the Virginia coupon case of Andrew
Antoni against Samuel c. Greenhow. treas
urer Of the city ofRichmond, brought there
by writ OF error to the Supreme Court Of
Appeals of Virginia. This case arises out of
the facts below stated On the thirtieth of
March, 1871, the General Assembly of Vir-
ginia passed an act TO provide for the fund
ing Of the public debt, BY which two-thrds
of the amount due on the old bonds might
be funded in new bonds with interest cou
pons attached, receivable at and after ma.
turlty for all taxes, debts. dues aud de.
mands due the state. Under this act many
bonds were put out with coupons, which eX-
pressed on their face that they were recev-
able for taxes.
On the seventh of March, 1872, however,
the General Assembly passed another act
prohibiting the officers charged BIZ law with
the collection oftaxes from receiving in pay
ment thereof anything else than coin, or
treasury or national bank notes. The Su.
preme Court fAppeals of Virginia decided
ut its November term, 1872, in the case of
Antoni against Wright, that in issuing these
bonds the state entered into valid contract
with all persons taking the coupons
TO receive them in payment of taxes and
state dues that the act of 1872, so far as it
contlictcd with this contract, was void and
that the writ ofmandamus was the proper
nIt-t al
coupons in question when offered in paw
ment of taxes.
On the fourteenth Of January, 1882. the
General Assembly passed another act, Gu
titled IAN act to prevent frauds upon the
commonwealth and theholders of her secur-
tiles in the collection and disbursement of
revenues which provided, among other
things, that coupons should not be received
for taxes uutll their genuinenss had been
established by an appropriate judicial pro-
ceeding, the nature of which the act duly
set forth
| On the twentieth Of March Andrew An
toni rendered to the treasurer of the CITY of
Richmond coupon for So. Is in payment OF
taxes, 1t was refused and Antoni petitioned
the Supreme Court Of Appeals for u man.
damus to require its acceptance. That
court being equally divided in opinion on
the questions involved, denied the writ and
the case was brought 10 this court for re.
view. Chief Justice Waite in delivering the
opinion of the court says the question we
are now to consider is not whether if the
coupon rendered is in fact genuine, and
such AS ought under the contract to be re-
ceved and the tender is kept good, the
treasurer can proceed to collect the tax by
dlstralnt or such other process as the law
allows without making himself personally
responsible for any treSpass hemay commit
but whether the act of 1882 violates any i'm
piled obligation Of the State in respect to
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 en-
torcement when denied. At the time the
coupon was issued there was Il remedy by
mandamus from the supreme Court of APP
pcals TO compel the tax collector to take the
coupon and CANCEL the tax. BY the act of
1882 the following changes are made in the
old remedy: First the taxes actually due
must be paid III money before the court can
proceed after the collector has signiled in
the proper way his willingness TO receive
the coupons if they are genuine aud in law
receivable; second, the coupons must be
filed in the Court of Appeals and third,
| they must be sent 10 the local court to have
the fact of their genuineness and receiya-
blity determined, subject to an appeal to
the Circuit Court and the Supreme Court Of
Appeals. As the suit is for mandamus all
the provisions OF the general law regulating
the practice not inconsistent with the new
law remain and if the petitioner succeeds
in gcttlug his peremtory writ he will re-
cover his costs. No issues are required that il
would not have been in the powerofthe col
lector to raise before the change was made,
and there is no additional 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 ethcacious
remedy to compel . tax collector to receive
the coupons IN payment Of taxes in case he
will not do it without compulsion Iu the
opinion of this court they do not.
Inasmuch as we are satisfied thai a r.ma
dy is given by the act Of 1882 substantially
equivalent to that in force when the coupons
were issued, We have not deemed it neces
sary to consider what would be the effect of |
statute taking away all remedies. The |
judgment of the Virginia Supreme Court OF
Appeals is affirmed.
Justice Field and Harlan dissented.
Justice Field in his dissent saws Gam
not able to agree with the majority of the
court in the judgment in this case. nor in
the reasoning on which it is founded. The
legislation of Virginia which is sustained an.
pears to me to be in fragrant violation of the
contract with her creditors under the act of
Mar 80. 1871, commonly known as the fund.
ing act; and the doctrines advanced by the
court, though not so intended, do, in fact
license any disregard Of her obljuations