The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1883-03-08
Coupon Killer Bill.
U. S. SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS 1.-THE
VIRGINIA DEBT QUESTION SETTLED.

U. s. SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS 1.-THE
VIRGINIA DEBT QUESTION SETTLED.
On the 9Th inst. the Supreme Court of the
United States rendered its decision in the Cou-
pom case from Virginia, taken up by an ap-
peal from the decision-by a divided Court
of the Supreme Court of the State
In the Supreme Court Of the United States, on the
5th Justice Waite prepared and read the opin
ion which embodied the decision of the court in the
Virginia coupon case Of Andrew Antoni against
Samuel c. Greenhow, Treasurer of the city OF Rich
mond, brought here by writ Of to the Supreme
Court Of Appeals of Virginia. This arises out
Of the facts below stated On the 30t Of March, 1871
the General Assembly Of Virginia passed an act to
vide for the funding of the public debt by which
two-thirds of the amount due the old bonds
might be funded in new bonds with interest cou-
pons attached receivable and after maturity for
all taxes, debts dues and demands due the State
Under this act many bonds were put out with cou-
pons, which expressed their face that they were
receivable for taxes.
On the 7th of March, 1872, however, the General
Assembly passed another act, prohibiting tue ON
GERS charged by law with the collecting of taxes
from receiving In payment thereof anything else
than coin or treasury or national bank notes. The
November term, 1872 in the case OF Anioni against
Wright that in issuing these bonds 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 1t con-
hicted with this contract, was void; and that the
writ of mandamus was the proper remedy to com
pei collector to accept the coupons In question,
when offered in payment of taxes.
On the 14th OF January, 1882, the General Assem-
bly, passed another act, entitled IAN act to prevent
frauds upon the commonwealth and the holders Of
her securities, in the collection and disbursement
ofrevenues,' which provided, among other things
that coupons should not be received for taxes until
their genuineness had been established by an an
propriate judicial proceeding, the nature Of which
the act duly set forth.
On the 2Oth of March, Andrew Antoni rendered to
the treasurer of the city of Richmond coupon for
1915 in payment of taxes. 1t was refused and An.
toni petitioned the supreme Court Of Annsals for
mandamus to require Its acceptance. That court
being equally divided in opinion on the questions
involved denied the writ, and the was brought
to this court for review. Chief Justice Waite in
delivering the opinion of the court says the oues
ton we are now to consider is not whether If the
coupon rendered or Is in fact genuine and such as
ought under the contract to be received and the
tender is kept good the treasurer can proceed to
collect the tax by dsratnt such other process al
the law allows, without making himself personal1v
responsible for any trespass he NAV commit hut
whether the act Of 1882 violates any implied obliga
ton OF the state In respect to the remedies that NAV
be employed for the endorsements of Its contract II
the collector refuses to take them
The right Of the coupon holder is to have his con-
pom received for taxes when ofrered T.hs nnasttor
here is not as to that right but as to the remedy the
holder mas Tor It's enforcement when denied Al
the time the coupon was issued there was remedy
by mandamus from the Supreme Court of Appeals
to compel the tax collector 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 in money before
the court can proceed after the collector has sigp
fed In the proper way his willingness to receive
the coupons, II they are genuine and In law re-
ce1vable Second, the coupons must be filed In the
Court OF Appeals; and third, they must be sent to
the local court to have the Of their
and receivabil1ty determined subject to an appeal
to the Circuit Court and the Supreme Court Of Ap-
peals. AS the suit Ia for mandamus all the pro-
visions OF the general law regulating the practice
not inconsistent with the new law, remain, and II
the petitioner succeeds in getting his peremptory
writ ne VIII recover his costs. No issues are re-
CURED That 1t would not have been in the power of
tne collector to raise before the change was made
ana tnere Is no additional burden of proof imposed
70 meet the Issues. so that the simple question is
whetner the requirements of the advance of the
Taxes ane the change of the place and manner of
sria impair the ohligauon Of the contract on the
part OF the state to furnish an adequate and etca
cous remedy to compel tax collector to receive the
coupons IN payment of taxes in case he will not do
IL without compulston. In the opinion OF this
court tney do not. Inasmuch as we are satisfied
that remedy Is given by the act of 1882 substanti
ally equivalent to that in force when the coupons
were issued, we have not deemed 1t necessary to
consider what would be the effect Of statute taking
away all remedies. The Judgment OF the Virginia
supreme Court OF Appeals is confirmed Justices
Field and Harlan dissented