Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1883-03-14

was a remedy by mandamus from the
Supreme Court If Appeals 10 compel
the tax collectorsto receive. the co9-
POO. This imriisd 4 snit.. With all rs
incidents. SThe coupon KILLER ac'
made these changes in the Old rene
dy; /, that The takes must be raid in
advance in cash before the ccurt can
Fprocsed-npcu tho eaaeoas that arc
offered, 2, that tbeycaupeus must be
hied IN The Court Of Appeals; 8, that
they must be sent TO the local court
to have the factof tteir genuineDess
determined, subject to an appeal 10
the Circuit Court and the Sopreme
Court Of Appeals. "As tho suit is for
o mandamas all the provisions Ct the
general law regulating The practice
hot Inconsistent with the new law re-
main, aud If the petitioner succeeds
in getting his peremptoTy writ he
will recover his costs. No issues are
REQUIRED that it would not have been
10 the power Of The collector 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 aud the change of the place and
the manner of trial impair the obliga.
ticn Of the coutrsct on the part Of the
State 10 furnish nm adequate and
efficsclous remedy 10 compel a tax
collector TO receive .ha coupons in
payment Of taxes, in case he will not
do it without c0mpulsion. AS TO the
payment Of taxes iu odyauce the cont
holds that ''prompi payment OF taxes
by the citizen is az imporisn; as
promptness by the State III the dis
charge Of its owR obligations" and
that "the government should be able
to calculate with certainty on its rev
cnuee.' II thinks that it is better
that the individual should be required
to pay what Is demanded, and sure to
recover, ihsu tina, the government
should be embarrassed in ils operations
by a stay Of collection. The court,
tn Yefore, "cInnot see that the re
quirement ofthe taxes as condition
TO the employment Of the remedy is
such an impairment of the c'ntract as
makes the requirement Invalid" Nor
does the change Of the place aud
mode Of The trial imp II the conpon-
holders remedy.
1t having been urged that the
| fourth section OF the act of January,
1882, wes repealed 10y more recent
legislation OF the General Assembly
Of : irginia, taking away entirely
the remedy By maodamrs, the
court holds that sections |, 2 and
3 provide the tie same remedy thai
was provided IN section !. When
the contract was made the emchl
toy IFS enforcement WAS only by
obtaining a specific Performance.
That remedy, it is said, has been
taken away, but al thcr has been
substituted, equivalent to a suit al
law Tor the recovery oil damages
1t matters not whether the coupons
have been refused if full payment
Of the amount they call Tor is &C
tually made in money y remedy
ample for enforcing the payment Oh
tue money is ample Tor all the pur
poses OF tie contract. That VIC
think, is given by the act OF 1882.
As for the question OF rCc)veiy o.
costs, it is replied that they are not
recoverable by common law, but
are usually regulated by statute.
and an Objection based on the ia l.
ure Of sections /, , aud 3 to pro-
vide tor their recovery by the con~
pon.hoider If successful in his suit.
is not pertinent. Justice + eldc and
Harlan dissenied.
Justice Field, in his dissent says.
L am not able to agree with the
majority Of the court IN the Judg>
ment N this case nor il the reas-
Oning on which it is founded. The
legislation OF Virginia, which Is
sustained, appears to me to be Ii
hagrsnt violation OF the contract
with her creditors, under the act Of
March 30, 1871, commonly known
as the funding act ; and the doc
ltrlnes advanced by the court. though
not SO intended, do, in fact, license
any disregard OF her obligations
which the iIl-adyised policy OF hel
legislators may suggest. | find
myself ie@ildered by the opinion
OF the majority OF the court ] con-
less that ! cannot comprehend il,
80 foreign does ii appear to tie tc
10 what | haze heretofore supposed
to he established and settled law,
and ! fear that it will be appealed
10 as an excuse. it not justification,
for Legislation amounting P actically
to the reputation Of the obliga ton
OF States and Of their suoordnats
nunic;nalities. rheiY cities and CONNIE