Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-06-02
The Auditor 70 the Front.

The Auditor TO the Front.
The Norfolk Ledger says that Mr.. 5.
r.. SHIP. the collector Of State taxes
in that city, has received the following
important letter:
COMMONWEALTH or VIRGINIA,
OfgIcx AUDITOR PUBLIC ACCOUNT,
RIcHNoSD. May 2s, 1855.
Sonsei n. Shipp. Ciiy Treasurer, Norjok;
Dear Sir, II send you by to-dayls mall
copy OF the STATE OF yesterday, containing
the opinion OF Judge Wexford OF the Cir-<
cult Court OF Henrico county, IN me case VI
Cbaff,n against Taylor, decided In that
court on the 18th Instant. In TINS csss
Taylor treasurer OF Herico county, Iev,eu
upon Chafnn's property Tor taaes s
tender OF coupons therefor; Chafhn s1ed
TAYLOR for damages and Taylor plesaea
thai CNaffin should have compiled win the
requirements OF the act OF January IL
1882, known rs Coupon kllIer 20; 4, t,,,o
You will see that in this opinion Juuge
5 Wexford sustained the defence, ana stter
reviewing the recent decisions oi the su-
preme Court I'm coupon cases sald IN
view OF these decisions ~ npss,I ~ tSs
claim sci up in the rejoinder by the de-
fendant-that he was protected In his &C
ton by the mandate OF the state OF VII
In INV letter 10 you OF April the Gath In
slant said: eff coupons are rendered in
paymcnt OF taxes refuse to receive them
but do not levy until further orders from
this Office"
i now withdraw the instructions not to
levy. Very respectfully; ,
Auditor OF Public Accounts.
This letter Of the Auditors will re-
suit in bringing up for final decision
the question Of the right of the State to
require all coupons rendered for taxes
to be proved to be genuine.
We might leave BOND and HUGHES
out Of sight altogether. The decision
in the PARSONS case shows what their
decisions are worth. OF that case the
Supreme Court of the United States
said. in sarcastic phrase:
{" This bin is pithom precedent, and
sLonld hare been dismissed"
That rebuke has, however, not
changed BOND and HUGHES. They
last week struck out as "no answer
the CommSnwealth's plea that the cou-
pons rendered in certain cases had not
been proved to be genuine.
This last decision of Judges BOND
and HUGHES was directly in the face
of Judge WELLFoRD's decision, and
directly in the face of the law Of the
United States which provides in terms
that "the practice, pleadings. and
forms and modes Of proceeding in civil
causes other than equity and admiralty
causes in the circuit and district courts
of the United States shall conform as
near as may be to the practice, plead
ings, and forms and modes Of proceed
ing existing at the time in like causes
in the courts Of record OF the State
within which such circuit and district
courts are held, any rule Of court to
the contrary Notwithstanding"
Now, then, let the question 60 up to
the Supreme Court Of the United States.
That court has decided on three several
occasions that Coupon-Killer No. l is
constitutional law. In the case of
Moore rs. GreenhoT, the very latest of
the Virginia cases decided by that court,
the constitutionality Of that law was
clearly recognized, Mr.. Justice NAT
THEws stating in his brief opinion
that MOORE was RENTED" to his
remedy under that law. Judge WELL
FORD, following the decisions Of
the Supreme Court Of the United
States. ruled that it was good answer
to aver that the coupons rendered in
payment of taxes had not been proved
10 be genuine. Judges BOND and
HUGHEs, so far from following and
being governed by the ruling of this
Virginia court Of record as to the pro-
per practice in the State courts, kicked
out the same plea as "no answer"
We trust that Mr.. Justice MATTHEWS
will say to them next fall This case
is withom precedent and should hare
been dismissed"
Will II be said that this was not
merely question Of practice? Judge
WELLroRD's opinion in the case OF
Chg6ia rs. Taylor shows that ne re-
garded it as such question. Of course
il Coppon-Killer No. is an unconsti-
tu,ional law, the question OF prac-
sice need not be considered. But
il, rs Judge WEXFORD held
and as Judges BOND and HUGHES
know 10 be the fact, the Supreme Court
Of the United States has over and ovel
again decided that law to be consti
tutional, then it was question of prac
tice in the case before Judge WELL
FORD, and Judges HUGHES and BoNr
ought, like him, to have refused to rule
out the justifying plea.