The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-03-29
ACard from Mr.. Lennon.
j. s. LEMMoS, ESQ.,, OF Baltimore, has
aanf IN ia FIR soltowino card

never Intentionally misstate anybody's pro-
positions or arguments.
We infer from Mr.. LEMONS card that
at present he hasn't much faith In the
efficacy Of the remedy which week or two
ago he regarded as amply sufficient to Sc
cure to the coupon-holdcrs their rights.
In fact. he repeats In substance the Chief
Justices words, saying that II the coupon
holder gets his money after proving his
coupons to be genuine, he "cannot CON-
plain" IL seems TO us that II Mr.. LEM
MON held this opinion two weeks ago, there
was no necessity for him TO do aught more
than applaud this feature OF the decision OF
the Supreme Court Of the United States.
We expressly stated last week that the.
court had recognized the obligation OF the
State to receive her coupons; but not un-
ill they had been proved to be genuine.
And each several coupon has TO be proved
TO he genuine. Nobody will buy such
coupons. BY tue way, we don't. under
stand how unsigned coupons-we mean
coupons upon which all the words and
names are printed or lithographed--can be
proved TO be genuine.
Mr.. LENNON questions the States right
to "an aggressive remedy" We do not;
and the Supreme Court did not seem to
question it. On the contrary, the Court
said:
81. As TO the payment Of the taxes in
advance.
ain this connection it must be borne in
mind that the legislation, the validity OF
which is involved, relates alone TO the col
lection OF taxes levied under the authority
Of the State for the purposes OF revenue.
PrOmptness in the payment OF taxes by the
citizen Is as important as promptness by
the State In the discharge OF its own obi
cations; in fact. ordinarily the lat can
not be done without the first. Hence I'M
der the revenue system OF the United
States the collection OF the revenue in the
manner prescribed by law cannot be re-
strained by judicial proceedings. The
only remedy for On Illegal eXaction is pay
ment under protest and suit to recover
back the money paid. The reason is that
as il is necessary the Government should
be able to calculate with certainty or its
revenues, il is better that the individual
should be required to pay what is demand
ed under the forms Of law, and sue TO re-
csver back what he pays, than that the
Government should be embarrassed in its
operations by stay ii collections"
The only remedy for even "WegaI en-
action" is so and so. Isn't that rs true Of
Virginia as OF the United States! Surely |
If the court would Justify it in UNcLE SAN
it would justify it in Virginia.
As TO the rest OF Mr. lemons letter, we
viii simply say that we could make no
other or better comment upon it than may |
be found in our article Of last week on the
same subject.
BALTIMORE, March 20, 1888.
To the Editor of the Dispatch:
Permit me a few words in reference to 4 !
criticism in your valuable paper Of some |
views OF mine on the debt question.
/ did not in any way impute to the ST.
premc Court the statement that Virginia |
g dare" not refuse her coupons when ten
iered for taxes, and am unwilling TO be |
placed in the position OF falsifying the Ian
yuage of that court. The expression |
. dares" was used by newspaper here in |
a different connection, and even then With
out its originating with me.
The charge also that omitted to state the
8. whole truth in regard to the decision is so
unfair that l am sure you will on reflection |
correct that also. Nothing in what / said !
could mislead any one into the belief that
was quoting the decision 4" in erteaSO" or
LONG more than giving my individual
opinion of its result when boiled down."
o use the reported language OF Mr.. At
orney- General Blair.
You have stated my propositions in your
,wn way for the purposes OF your criticisms,
,ut at the same time have given their SUBJ
stance so fairly that l am confident You
lid not intend to do me any injustice in
,he matters referred to.
Your answers to my opositions-for
which, by the way, claim neither inven-
ion nor priority-fail TO convince me of
error, for the reason that we are looking at
Two entirely different aspects OF the case.
Smiths right TO an aggressive remedy COM
pelling an unwilling State to accept its
coupons in payment Of taxes is one thing;
and in seeking il he must pursue the course
laid out in the Riddleberger bill, by adj
vancing the amount OF the taxes, proving |
The gcnuineness OF the coupons, dc. And |
II the whole procedure results in the
States paying him the face of the coupons
IN money he cannot complain, rs the obli-
CATION of the State is equally discharged in
either way. Your citations from the opinion
all bear on the above, and are IN terms linn
tied to the "remedy" OF the coupon
holder, whose "rights" are admitted both |
by the opinion and the Riddleberger bill
itself.
I, on the contrary, question the States |
right to an aggressive remedy, by seizure |
and sale, compelling an unwilling Smith |
10 pay his taxes in anything but those cou-
pons which he has rendered, and which he
had, according to the Supreme Court, a
right TO tender and which the State was
under valid contract to receive.
Can he be punished as delinquent be-
cause an officer OF the State, instead OF |
obeying the law contained in the original |
contract, has elected to follow an "act Of
the State which forbids the receipt Of these |
for taxes" and which in so doug |
s'is violation OF the contract and void |
against coupon-holders ~?
Such may be the law, but ii will require |
something more decided than has yet come |
from Che Supreme Court to convince me Of |
it. Respectfully, J. s. LENNON.
-----------------
According to the census, the foreigners