Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1885-03-21
VIRGlNIA'S COUPON CASES
ARGUMENT BEGUN IN THE
U. S. SUPREME COURT.

The Attorney for the State Denies the
Jurisdiction OF the Court-The Immu-
nifty of s. State from Being Sued Also
Rais' The End Not Yet Reached.
WAsHINGTON, March 2O.-Five of the
coupon tax cases from Virginia, viz.
Poindexter against Greenhow, White
against Greenhow, Carter against Green
how, Moore against Greenhow, and Chat
fin against Taylor. came up for argument
in the United States Supreme Court this
afternoon. They all present the question
of the effect of a tender for taxes of cou-
pons of the State of Virginia of
March so, 1871, and the right of a
Virginia taxpayer TO bring a suit
for damages against a Tax Collector for
leyying on his property after the tender of
such tax receivable coupons. In the first
three cases the State Collector of Taxes
pleads, in justification of his lew, thar
the act of the General Assembly of Jan.
26, 1882, and the 18th section of the act of
April 1, 1882, and in the fifth case he
pleads in addition. the 81 section of the
act of March 13, 1884. None of the cases
are suits to compel directly the receipt of
coupons by the Tax Collector. They are
all suits to recover damages FOR levy upon
the property after the tender of coupons.
THE POINT AT ISSUE.
W. L. Royal, who opened the argument
to-day for the bOndhOlders, stated the
point at issue as follows:
While the State OF Virginia admits that she
cannot repudiate her coupons outright, che
claims that she may temporarily suspend
their taX-paying power whilst she makes in
quiry and satisfies herself that the coupons
offered are really her coupons, and not simu-
lated coupons, and that pending such period
of suspension she may compel a taxpayer to
pay his tax IN coin to be returned to him
when she is satisfied that the coupons offered
are really hrs. The creditor denies this, He
insists that her contract Is not a contract that
she VIII receive coupon ten days after it is
offered or any other number of DAYS after it is
offered.
MIR. Royal maintained that by the Ian
guage of the States contract, by four de-
cistons of her own Supreme Court. and by
two decisions of the United States SUI
preme Court, coupon was legal tender
for a tax.
THE STATES STAND.
F. S. Blair, Attorney General OF Vir-
ginia, who followed for the State, main
tanned:
First. That the declarations and bills in ALI
the cases were insufficient IN law.
Second. That the courts below had no possi-
bic jurisdiction of any of them.
Ehlrd. That 1t Is a fundamental principle
in all sovereignties that a State cannot be-
ued at all unless she consents to be sued, and
that the State of Virginia had not consented
to be sued in any of the modes adopted IN
these cases, or IN any of the courts in which
they were brought.
Fourth. That the subject matter OF all the
SUITS Is the collection of the public revenue of
Virginia and the receipt OF her coupons there
for, and for this additional reason the courts
below should not have entertained them.
Fifth. That wrlts of error and appeals in
each of these cases should be dismissed, as the
amount in controversy in each Is less than
$1,000, the jurisdictiOnal sum necessary for
this court.
Sixth. That the parties-plaintiff and defen-
dant-are all residents of the same State and
no such constitutional questions arise in any
OF the cases as will justify the interposition Of
this court.
Argument will be continued Monday.