New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-04-21
VIRGINIA COUPON TAX CASES
DECISION IN FAVOR OF THE BoSDaoLDERs

L
dered by the Supreme Court Of the United States to-day
in the groups of Virginia coupon tar
cases, which stand upon the docket as follows:
No ssd-Tno%as PO,pdsster agt Samuel oroenhov.
No. sso-samuei $. Carter at the same
tnofs Ohio to%pany as the B.
| NO. IGOR d. CbAhn agt William Taylor
No. 5ss is from the Hastings Court OF the Ctr AZ
Richmond Nos. $50 and 500 from the United states
Circuit for the Eastern District OF virgina M
| s26 from the court for the Western District Of
that State. and No. 1860 from the Virginia Supreme
| Court Of Appeals.
The first three present directly the question Of
the effect OF Of tender for OF the coupons Of thu
bonds Of March So 1871, and the right nj the Virginia
taxpayer to bring suits for damages against tax col
lcctor fol levying his property after tender tag
receivable coupons The sixth presents the oues-
tiou Of the right OF citizen Of Virginia pay ccnsa
tax imposed by statute of that State in the recey-
able coupons Of the bonds of March 80 1871 fourth
presents the question of the right of
taxpayer of Virginia. after slender of coupons taxes
to Injunction restrain the levy sale Of his
| property.
The principal opinion group Of cases has direct
reference to No $50. Pondexter against Greenhow II
was prepared and delivered by Mr.. Justice Matthews
and decided the question presented by that
! lows
l. By the terms Of the FINDING ACT Of the State OF
Virginia Of March 80 1871 and the bonds and
coupons In virtue OF the same contract msde be-
tween every coupon holder aud the State that sucn
coupons should be receivable at and after maturity
for all taxes. debts dues and demands due the State
right of the coupon holder under which to have
his coupons received for when offered; and any
OF the State which forbds the receipt OF these co
pons for taxes is violation Of the contract and void az
against coupon holders
q Tho faculty Of being receivable in payment Taxes
of the of the right 1t constituted self
executing remedy In the hands OF taxpayer for 1t be-
came thereby the legal duty Of every collector
ceiye such coupons in payment OF taxes upon an equal
footing and with equal effect a. though they were
money; and after a tender OF such coupons duly made
purpose the situation and rights OF the taxpayer
and coupon holder precisely what they would have
been If he had made like tender In money.
g. 1t is well settled by many decisions OF this Court
that purpose OF affecting proceedings enfo
the payment of taxes lawful tender Of payment Is
equivalent 10 actual payment either being sufficient to
deprive collecting officer of all authority for further
action and making every subsequent step illegal and
void.
The coupons In question not bills Of credit" In
the sense OF the constitution which forbids
the State to emit bills OF credit" be-
cause, although issued by the State OF
virginia on credit made receivable Ia payment Of
taxes and DC gOtabe pass from hand to hand by
delivery merely they not intended to circulate as
money between individuals and between Government
and individuals for the ordinary purposes OF society
g. An action or suit. brought ny taxpayer who has
duly such coupons I'm payment OF his taxes,
against the person who under color Of Office tax col
lector and acting In the enforcement OF void law
passed by the Legislature OF the State. having
| refused such coupons. proceeds By seiz-
ure and sale OF the property OF tic
plaintiff to enforce the collection OF such tax is action
or suit ganal him personally. wrong-doer and Is not
ayai st Ihe state Within meaning of the eleventh
.idnent to the Constitution OF the w TED siales
Authority Of the state. defend ON the ground that
| I'D, al hfa nj NslH
can not rest on the bare assertion Of hi'
defence. but is bound to establish II;
body witch can act only through age and command
only by law order to complete his defence, he must
po luce "A valid law of the state which constitutes his
| Commission its agent and a warrant for his act
T. The act OF the General Assembly OF virginia OF Jan
uary 20, 1882 10 provide for the more efficient colec
ton Of the revenue, TO support Government "nian
ns public schools and :" pay to On ss IN
discharge OF the taxes license taxes and other
bank currency and dining else, and threby .rbdng
receipt OF coupons issued under the act OF March 80
1871. in payment therefor although IL ls essatv x
OF the government OF Virginia, Ia not law OF ue
safe Of virginia because nnm.d hx the 6aostI9
| tiuu OF the Uuited states.
8; The State has passed no suen aw tos u cainSt;
and what II cannot do in contemplation OF law u mas
not The Constitution Of t, United States and lis
own contract, both rrepeaabe by any ac on us part
are tue law Virginia. and that law made IL the duty
receive coupons tenIered 10 pay
,I tb.esIter taken to br without warrant of law aid
therefore n wrong. This strips the defendant OF as
lion OF the plaintiffs rights for which be must personal
| ~ answer , .,-,, 49,, .... ,h.,
| tho statute the application OF which in the par.
tcular sought 10 Dc prevented is not VOID on us
face. but complained ofony because ts 9prrttoa IN
the part cuar instance works VOL ton OF c0nstlt-
right, for the cases arc Numerous where Tue TAX
laws OF state which ~ their general ana pt"per sp
perfectly valid. nave been held TO become sod
In particular either rs ancoa stitution EXCAVATIONS
| IN commerce. violations OF Contract .prOhiDltri
10y the Constitution or because in some other way they
operate deprive the party complaining or rlsh So
l,vt i'm ,f
TO- In of detinue the action Is purely defensive
the part OF the plaintiff Its object merely TO reSis.
AN wrong aud restore the status IN quo IS
when the right TO ne yn'ilcatcd was lnvalei ~
is ana1lgoa, TO The preventive remedy 81 m ir
quent examples occur In cases to prevent tho Illegal ah
II The suit authorized Dy the act OF the Genera; As
sembly OF Virginia OF January 20, 1882 against the cot
ector of taxes refusng accept tender OF coupons 10
recover back the amount paid protest aey
al all tho breach OF tbs contract which required hih
rluon holder has right To say he will Got pay he
amount a second time and insisting upon MS tender
equivalent to payment, resist the farther exaesioa
who ms properly TO s.fpsce s &c tim, T6s
of seon which part of the remedy merely wnen enn
S ~ reoI because the law winch gave 1t Is also
tract and therefore cannot De changer "i'nou' nui
L. Neither can 1t be considered an adequate remedy
In view OF supposed necessity for sun nary proceeI
state winch requires that the prompt collection oi taxes
would be numbered or ensarrds'et Ior Tue revenue
.ysem mist yeld the coAtFact which the Stas us
srfuly made and the Obligation OF which by the Coa-
sltutiou IL is forbidden To impair.
IL The act OF the General Assembly OF Virginia OF jan
nary % 1882 aud the ncn iatory act OF March ID,
Ist are uucoms utona AMI VOID because they Impair
iii. Of the contract OF the state WIN the cou
non holder under OF March 80. l5Il ana that Oe
pg the main object OF the two acts the vice whlcn iny
dates them peryadcs them throughout and In all ther
provisions Il Is not practicable IL separate Those pa
which repeal and abolish the actions OF tressss 'a
trespass the aud other particular Form oi euo
AS remedies for the xpayer who has rendered us oo
pops In payment OF take from the main Jcct OF tlo
| thafn las
| and lt follows that the whole OF these anu slmitss
statutes must be declared To be unconstitutional hu
aud void IL also follow that these statutes cannot 10
re,urdod In the OF tue United states a. awso
the State to oDeyed rules OF decision Ia tAIs ~
common law under section 72l Revised Statutes, OF ~
regulating the practice OF those courts under sc0oH
| Ola Revised Statutes. , 4,