New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-04-30
THE VIRGINIA COUPONS.
A REVIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT DE,
CISION


To he Edttor Of The Trtbune
SIR: The Virginia act of January, 1882.
seems to have solved the difficult problem OF How may
state repuaiae her debts without violating contract
On March s. 1885, this act received the sanction of the
highest judicial tribunal the Nation. The case was
briefly this; BY the act of March 80, 1871. Virginia
providing for the funding Of twotbirds OF the amount
due on her old bonds in coupon bonds the coupons
being made expressly receivable at and after maturity
for all taxes debts, dues and demands the STATE,
Under this act old bonds to the amount Of
were surrendered In exchange for 900 Of tho
bonds (the balance being tak.n in certificates
claimed to be cbangeabe West Virginia. the coupons
bearing their faces the that they
oevabe Cor taxes. One OF them, amounting to 3d.
purchased by Anton Virginia taxpayer. On March
90 1882 he enoered the coupon tbeu overcue 10 The
tax collector. together with Is cents In money in
payment OF his tax OF SO 49, The collector having
fused In Obednce the OF 1882, TO receive the
coupon in payment of the tax. Anton applied to the
State Court Appeals for mandamus to compel him to
do That court being divided in opinion the
came up TO the United States Supreme Court
Under the law Of Virginia existing in 1871, when
the bonds were issued Antoni could have obtained
mandamus to the collector from the Court of Appeals
But the act Of January 1892 after rectng in Its pre-
ambe that there spurious coupons in existence,
provided that the collector should receive the
pons only "for Identification and vsrfcation," mme-
collected by legal process If not paid that the taxpayer
might tuen bring a suit against the State TO establish
" the genuneness and legality" Of his coupons In the
County Court the trial TO be by jury and either party
TO have the right OF appeal to the State Circuit Court
and from that the Court Of Appeals; the State
70 De defended in the lower courts by the States Attor
nsy and In the Court Of Appeals by the Attorney
General. In the event Of final judgment In favor oil
the commences aud legality of the coupons, the state
Treasurer TO receive them for the tax and to refund
the tx money before paid Of the first moneys In tho
treasury, in preference to all other claims.
The only question before the Supreme Court whether
this act Impaired the obligation of tho contract with the
bondhoder contain ed the act OF 1871. II 1t did H.
void under the Federal Constitution; and In that case,
Anoni entitled to mis- mandamus In spite OIL The
opinion delivered by the Chief-Jusce. The Court
ned that although under the former law. the taxpayer
could have applied for mandamus to the Court OF Az
peas to compel the collector to receive the coupon for
taxes the collector might have resisted the application
setting up any defences he choose that this implied
suit with process, peading Issues, trial and judgment
that the act OF 1882 required no more, and made no
material change in the place and mode Of trial. that the
system of the United requires taxes to be
paid in advance leaving the taxpayer to recover them
back by suit If illegally exacted; and that the whoie'
the remedy given By the act of 1882 being substantially
equivalent to the before existing there .m-
parmen Of the contract and Anton was therefore not
entitled to his maudamus.
scented. Judge Field, in most able and elaborate dis
senting opinion observed inter ALA. that the recev
ability Of the coupons for the chief nduoement
offered the holders OF the old bonds TO surrender them
exchange for two-thirds Of their amount bonds,
and cites this point the decided language Of the Court
In reference very bondsln the of Hartmann
agt. Greenbow (l02 u. s. 679), which follows:
She thus herself not only to pay the bonds when
they became due. but to receive the nterestcoupons
the and after their maturity TO their full
amount for any taxes or dues Ivy him to the state This
ecyaoty OF tine coupons for such taxes and dues
written their face, and accompanied them into what
hands they passed 1t constituted their chief value.
and was the main consideration offered TO the
holders OF the old bonds to surrender them and
accept bonds for two-thirds Of their amount"
He observes that the new act, In annung the receiv
ability the coupons for impaired the obligation
of the contract and therefore void that as To the
rounding OF paid after final judgment favor Of
the taxpayer he might have to walt an indefinite time
before there would be in the treasury applicable
the demand that in the majority OF cases, the ex-
penses OF the litigation wond exceed the amount oil tho
coupon. He then shows by reference to Official docu-
of the that the recital In the preamble OF tho
act OF 1882 OF the existence spurious coupons was
simply false and adds that were the fact other
wise it would not justify the rejection OF coupons that
are gen Abiding the suit required to be prose.
taxpayer in order to realize the amount OF
his coupon, he says:
To recover this Judgment he must pay the costs of the
prGoesGns, SnS me n ieos sb o, s f a tS a1
Tnis is most palpabe and nagrant impairment OF the
obligation of the contract No legislation rs destruc
tive all value TO the contract is conceivable unless
should absolutely and ter rep date the coupon as
a contract AT ALL IT is practical Reputation
BY reference to number OF decisions showsit to
the settled doctrine of the Court that may be
impaired by burdening the proceedings for its enforce
ment with new conditions and restrictions, 80 as 70
make tue remedy hardly worth pursuing" As to the
duty the Treasurer refund the paid in the event
Of a fnal Judgment for the taxpayer (the subsequent
act of April T. 1882, having taken away the remedy by
mandamus), he ASKS;
what avail can 1t be TO the owner OF the COUPON
Treasurer refuse 10 refund the amount There Is no
mode according the opinion OF the majority OF e0erc-
ing his action. No mandaDus can issue for that rem
edy and all compulsory process have been abolished
In respect to the revenue system of the United states
orbddng judicial proceedings to restrain the collection
of tax alleged invaldty, leaving the taxpayer to
recover It back by suit he observes that there the
validity of the tax OF Virginia is not sssael Tue only
question is Shall the officer OF the state required 10
receive u payment OF the tax what she by her contacs
declared should receiver He insists that chang,
in the remedy imDairs the contract unless adequate
and ecacous substituted for the superseded
His reasoning in applying this principle to the present
case is so conclusive that Of must be given In mis-
| own words:
That there ia any adequate and ecacous remedy sub
Tor the one IN existence WIEN
| was adop' ed, cannot, iJ 10 me. be seriously
affirmed rhe remedy originally existing was elective NO
could refuse receive the coupon wltaout SUBJECT
ing himself personal liability, After tender no vald
sale could be for the taxes And the creditor oOdld
invoke the compulsory process OF
specific performance. Now all is changed law whlcn
pr ctoay destroys the value OF the coupon sustained
The officer bound to receive it, In tue that ho
cannot be ompeeh 10 take IT, He can enforce the pay
meut OF la money; he can sell property. neees
sary 10 collect them he wholly iggore the coupon
the holder should fO0sDly consent to incur double
the In costs to establish by jury trial i;s gen.
| nd lees rpce lax
The last paragraph this dissenting opinion contains
| TOO much of weishty suggestion to be omitted:
lind my self bewlldered by the opinion OF the majority
foreign does it appear what have heretofore
supposed the saDlished and settled law And rear
that IL will DO appealed To as al excuse. not lslnes
tin amnnnting nractcalY 90 the repu-