The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1885-03-26
The Virginia Coupon Cases.

Five of the coupon tax cases from Vir.
ginia, viz, PoindeXter against Greenhow
White against GreenhOW Carter against
Greenhow Moore against Greenhow, and
Chaffin against Taylor, came up for argu.
ment in the United States Supreme Court
at Washington, on Friday last. They all
presented the question Of the effect of a
tender for taxes of the coupons of the
State of Virginia of March 80, 1871, and
the right of the Virginia taxpayer to bring
a suit for damages against the tax collector
for levying on his property after tender
of such tax receivable coupons In the
first three cases the State collector of
taxes pleads in Justification of his levy the
act of the General Assembly of january
26, 1881, and the 18th section of the act Of
April J.. 1882, and in the fifth. case he
pleads, in addition. the third section of
the act of March Is, 1884. None of the
cases are suits to compel directly the re-
ceipt Of coupons by the tax collector They
are all suits to recover damages for levy
upon property after tender of coupons.
Mr.. VIM. L. ROyall who opened the ar
gument for the bOndbolders, stated the
point at issue as follows "While the State
Of Virginia admits that she cannot re-
pudiate her coupons outright, she claims
that she may temporarily suspend their
taXpaving power whilst she makes inquiry
and satisfies herself that the coupons Of
fered are really her coupons and not sim
nlated coupons and that, pending such
period OF suspension, she may compel the
taxpayer to pay his tax in coin, to be re-
turned to him when she is satisfied that
the coupons offered are really hers. The
creditor denies this. He insists that her
contract is not contract that she will re-
mir fIn IN, =, ,fE 4
ferred, or any other number of days after
it is offered, but that she will receive it
ache,a 1t IS offered.
Mr.. Royal maintained that by the lam
guage of the States contract, by the four
decisions of her own Supreme Court, and
by the two decisions of the United States
Supreme Court, the coupon was q legal
tender for the tax.
MI. +. ). Blair, encouragement OF Viz
gina, who followed for the State. MAIN
tanned, first, that the declarations and bills
in all the cases were insufficient in law ;
second, that the courts below had no pos
sible jurisdiction Of any of them third,
that it is fundamental principle in all
Soyereignties that state cannot be sued
at all unless she consents to be sued, and
that the State of Virginia had not con-
Sented to be sued in any of the modes
adopted i'll these cases, or in any of the
counts 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
therefor, and for this additional reason
the courts below should NOT have enter
tanned them fifth, that the Writs of error
and appeals in each of these cases should
be dismissed, as the amount in each is less
than 81 600 the turiSdiptiOnal Sum naooS
sary for this court sixth, that the parties
plaintiff and defendant are all residents of
the same state, and no such consti-
tutional questions arise in any of the cases
as will Justify the interposition of this
court. The argument was continued on
Monday, by Messrs. Blair, Chamberlain
and Merrick, and oNTuesday by Messrs
Merrick, Swayn and Garland, without
concluding.