Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-04-21
THE COUPON CASES.
THEY 90 AGAINST THE STATE
syssp.ls or the Decision ~ Delivered bv JUS
sscs Matthews Fsar justices pssaest--
Cannon Lssssiaties Rooted 10.

Coupon Lssisisties Rooted 10.
tBy telegraph 70 the Dispetch.l
WASHINGTON, ID. O., April 10
The United States Supreme Court
rendered an important decision to-day
in the group Of cases known as the vir-
ginia coupon.tax cases, involving the
validity Of the recent legislation OF that
State with reference 10 the payment Of
State taxes in coupons Of 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
iempts TO evade the obligations under
which it rests TO receive coupons Of its
bonds in payment Of State taxes is I'M
constitutional and void, because
il impsirs the obligation Of con-
tract that the taxpayer having
once made due tender Of cou-
Yons in payment Of his taxes is un-
der no obligation 10 pay such tax in
money, but may rest securely upon his
right TO have coupons received when
offered. and that the tax-collector who
attempts thereafter to forcibly collect
such taxes by levying upon the tax
payers. property is not shielded by
the legislation Of the State, but
makes the attempt at his personal peril.
The Court holds, furthermore, that suit
brought against the tax-collector for the
seizure Of the taxpayers property, after
due tender Of coupons, is not "a suit
against the State, but is suit against
an individual tresspasser acting without
legal authority Of the State. The opin-
ion was delivered by Justice Matthews.
The Chief-Justice and Justices Bradley,
Miller, and Gray dissented ; Justice
Bradley delivering the dissenting opin-
ion.
The cases thus decided stand upon
the docket as follows: No. 5SS, Thomas
Poindexter against S. @. Greenhow
No. $50, William l.. White against
same; No. 500, Samuel s. Carter
against same No. S26, S. Brown Allen,
Auditor, and others, against the Balti-
more and Ohio Railroad Company, and
No. 1860, X. b. Chafiin against William
Taylor.
No. 5Ss is from the Hastings Court
OF the city of Richmond; Nos. $50 and
500 are from the United States Circuit
Court for the Eastern district Of Vir-
ginia: No. S26 is from the same court
for the Western district Of that State
and No. 1860 is from the Virginia Su-
preme Court of Appeals.
The first three Of the above-named
cases present directly the question of
the effect Of the tender for taxes Of cou-
pons Of the bonds Of March 80, 1871,
and the right Of q Virginia taxpayer to
bring suits for damages against the
tax-collector for levying on his
property after tho tender Of tax
receivable coupons. The fifth case
presents the question of the right
of a citizen of Virginia to pay the
license-tax imposed by the statute Of
that State in tax-receiyable coupons of
the bonds Of March 80, 1871. The
fourth case presents the question of the
right Of a nonresident taxpayer Of
Virginia, after the tender of coupons
for taxes, TO an injunction to restrain
levy on and the sale Of his property.
The principal opinion in this group
OF cases has direct reference to SIS
Poindexter against Greenhow. 1t was
prepared and delivered by Justice Mat
thews, and decided the questions pre-
scented by that case, as follows:
LIST. BY the terms of the funding act
of the State of Virginia Of March 80,
1871, and the issue of bonds and con-
pons in virtue of the same, contract
was made between every coupon-holder
and the State that such coupons should
be receivable at and after maturity for
sll taxes, debts, dues, and demands due
the State, the right of the coupon-holder
under which was to have his coupons
received for taxes when offered, and
any act of the State which forbds the
receipt Of these coupons for taxes is a
violation of the contract and void as
against the coupon-holders.
I'd. The faculty of being receivable
in payment Of taxes was Of the essence
Of right, as il constituted a self-exe-
cutting remedy in the hands of the tax
payer, for it became thereby the legal
duty of every tax-collector to receive
such coupons in payment of taxes upon
al equal footing and with equal effect
as though they were money; and after
the tender Of such coupons duly made
for that purpose the situation and
rights Of Taxpayer and coupon-hOlder
were precisely what they would have
been II he had made like tender in
money.
3D., Ii is well settled by many de-
cisionS of this court that for the pur-
pose of affecting proceedings to enforce
the payment of taxes the lawful tender
of payment is equivalent to the actual
payment, either being sufficient to de-
prive the collecting-ofiicer of all au-
thority for further action, and making
every subsequent step illegal and void.
4th. The coupons in question are not
"bills Of credit" in the sense of the
Constitution, which forbids States - to
emit bills Of credit" because, although
issued by the State of Virginia on its
credit, and made receivable in payment
of taxes and negotiable so as to pass
from band to hand by delivery merely,
they were not intended to circulate as
money between individuals and between
the government and individuals for Or
binary purposes Of society.
9th. An action or suit brought by |
a taxpayer who has duly rendered such
in payment of his taxes against
a person who, under color Of office as
tax-collector and acting in the enforce
ment Of void law passed by Legis-
lature of State, having refused such
coupons, proceeds by the SEIZURE aud
sale Of the property Of the plaintiff to
enforce the collection of such taxes. is
an action or suit against him personally
rs wrong-doer, and is not against the
state within the meaning Of the eleventh
TO the Constitution of the
United States.
9th. Such defendant, sued as awrong-
ioer, who seeks to substitute the State