Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1885-04-21
VrRGINIA'S TAX COUPONS
THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES
AGAINST THE STATE,

T2aFusaI to Accept the Coupons for Taxes
Held to be Breach of Contract-Tax
Collectors Personally Liable for Re
fusaI-The Questions Involved De
tailed-The Court Not Unanimous.
WASHINGTON, April 20.-The United
States Supreme Court rendered an import
ant decision to-day in the groBp of cases
known as the Virginia coupon tax cases,
involving the validity of recent legisla-
tion of that State with reference to the
nayment Of State taxes in coupons of the
state bonds. The decision was against
the state and in favor of the bondholders
on all material points. The court holds
that all legislation of the State which at
+empts to evade the obligation under
which it rests to receive coupons of it's
bonds in payment of State taxes is uncon-
stitutional and void, because it i'm
pairs obligation of contract; that
a taxpayer having once made due
tender Of coupons in payment
Of bis taxes is under no obligation to pay
such taxes in money, but may rest
securely on his right to have the coupons
received when offered. and that tax col
lectOr who attempts thereafter to forcibly
collect such taxes by levying upon the
@Xpayer's property is not shielded by
legislation of the State, but
makes the attempt at his
personal peril. The court holds,
furthermore, that the suit brought against
tax collector for seizure of a taxpayers
property, after a due tender of the cou-
p0ns is not suit against the State, but
is suit against an individual trespasser
acting without legal authority of the
State.
The opinion was delivered by Justice
Matthews.
The Chief Justice and Justices Bradley,
Miller and Gray dissenteG. Justice Brad
ley delivered the dissenting opinion.
THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED.
This decision was rendered in the group
ofcases known as the Virginia coupon
tax cases, which stand upon the docket
as follows: No. 5SS, Thomas Poin-
dexter VS.. Samuel c. Greenlow; !;
No. $50, William L. White vs..
the same; No. 500, Samuel S. Carter
VS.. the same; No. S26, s. Brown and others
VS.. the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Com
pany, and No. 1860, r. b. Claflln VS..
/ William Taylor. No 5SSis from the Hust-
h iugs Court of the city of Richmond. Nos.
\ $50 and 800 froR the United States Circuit
lCourt for the Eastern district of Virginia,
lNo. 826 rom the same court for the West
Tern district of that State, and No. 1850
ltrom the Virginia Supreme Court Of Ap-
peals.
The first three of the abOve-named cases
present direct the question of the effect
Of a tender for taxes Ofcoupons of bond of
March 3d. 1871, and the right Of Virginia
taxpayer to bring suit for damages against
A q tax collector for levying on his property
-
The fifth case presents the question Of
The right of a citizen of Virginia to pay
License tax imposed by statute of that
State in tax receivable coupons of the
oOnds Of March 30, 1871.
The fourth case presents the question of
The right Of nonresident taxpayer Of
Virginia, after the tender of coupons for
taxes. to an Injunction to restrain a levy
on and sale of his property.
THE PRINCIPAL OPINION.
The principal opinion in this group of
cases has direct reference to 5SS, PoindeX-
ter against GreenlOw. 1t was prepared
and delivered by Justice Matthews, and
decides the questions presented by that
case as follows:
By the terms Of the funding act OF the
State Of Virginia Of Nj arch 80, 1871, and the
issue Of bonds and coupons in virtue OF the
sane, contract was made between every cou-
pom holder and the State that such coupons
should "be receivable at and after maturity
for all taxes. debts dues and demands due
the State.' The right of a coupon holder,
under which he was to have his coupons re-
ceved for taxes when offered, and any act Of
The state which forbids the receipt of these
coupons for taxes, is violation Of contract and
void as against coupon holders.
2. The faculty of being receivable in pay
ment Of taxes was Of the essence OF right. as
constituted a self-eXecutng remedy in the
Aands Of the taxpayer, for it became thereby
The legal duty Of every tax collector to re-
eelYe such coupons in payment OF taxes upon
ND equal footing and with equal effect as
lodgh they were money. and after the tender
Oh such coupons duly made for that purpose.
ue situation and rights of the tav payer and
coupon holder were precisely what they would
nave been if he had made like tender in
money.
EFFECT OF A TENDER.
3 IT is well settled by many decisions Of
'Nls court that for the purpose Of affecting
proceedings TO enforce the payment OF taxes
awful tender of payment is equivalent to ac-
W4l aymcnt, either being sufficient 70 de-
ENe the collecting officer Of all authority for
sqftaer action, and making every subsequent
aep Illegal and void.
4. The coupons in question are not "bills of
Qelt' n the sense Of the constitution. which
NIWUs states TO "emlt bills OF credit" be-
t4h Though issued by the state Of Virginia
WI jus credit and made receivable in payment
nl.' i1 hand by delivery merely they were
Hut intended to circulate rs money between
.A .A..teuals and between the government and
Is for the ordinary purposes Of fo-
Do -n action, or suit. brought by a tax
FDIt who has duly rendered such coupons IN
.ent oi his taxes, against person who,
.i I.Ir Of an officer as tax collector and
.t 20 enforcement Of q void law passed.
.Nt iogislature of the state, having re-
,Ncn coupons, proceeds, by SEIZURE ana
\ .'' .- ine property or % plaintin, 90 enforce
.-. .ltecuou Of such taxes, is an action, or
d-i.n2J him personally ~ wrong doer'
NOT against the state within the mean
.-'t lle eleventh amendment 20 the N0asu
"..'0n of the United States.
TO- 'Ncl defendant sued rs q WrOng-dOer
o seeks 10 substitute the state in MS place
NY Justify by authority OF the state or TO
on the ground that the state ha0
''p.'d li5 act and exoneratod him cannot
.h lle bare assertion Of hls defense, but
ahl 20 establish 30, and as the state De-
.IttI corporate body which can act only
e d agents aud command only by law, in
'i io complete bis defense he must pro-
. Q valid law OF the state which c0n-
'e uis commission as lt3 agent and
"aI ant Tor his act.
iNYALIDIrY OF THE LAW.
The act OF the General Assembly OF
y tk1hlA Of Jan, 20. lSs2, 'tO provide for
rc emcient collection Of revenue 10 sup
hl the government. maintain public schools
ll 10 pay interest on Che public debit re-
ulIlnk lhN collectors 20 receive in the dis
YaIke OF taxes, license taxes, and other dues,
k0iu, silver, United States Treasury notcs,
nali9nal bHnk currency, and nothing else.
AMI therehy forbiddnr the receipt OF coupons