Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1885-04-21
THE COUPON CASES.

L
given in yesterdays GAZETTE. Three OF
the cases presented directly The question OF
the effect of a tender for taxes OF the cou'
mons of the bonds OF March 80, 1871, and
the right of the taxpayer to bring suits for
damages against the tax collector for levy
ing ON his property after a tender of tax.
receivable coupons. The sixth case pre-
septed the question of the right OF a cit!zen
OF Virginia TO pay license tax imposed ny
a statute of that State in the tax-recelvaole
commons of the bonds of March ~, 1871
The fourth case presented the question OF
the right of non resident taxpayer CT VIZ
yinia, after tender of COUPONS for taxes, TO
an Injunction to restrain the levy on ana
sale Of his property.
The orinon Of Justice Matthews embraces
fourteen points, as follows:
| / By the funding act of Virginia of March
20 ISL. and the issue OF bonds and coupons
hereunder, contract existed between cou-
non holders and the State that such cou-
mons shonld ''be receivable at and after ma
Luritv for all La xes, debts, dues and demands
due the State" The coupon holder had a
right to have his coupons received for taxes
and any act of the State forbiddlng such re-
CENT is q violation of the contract and VOID
rs against coupon holders.
The faculty of being receivable in pay
ment of taxes constituted self executing
remedy in the hands of q taxpayer, it be-
coming the duty of every tax collector to
receive such coupons in payment OF taxes
upon the same footing as money, and after
tender The rights Of the taxpayer were pre-
cisey what they would have been if he had
rendered money.
3, 1t is settled by this court that, for the
purpose of elIecting proceedings to enforce
The payment of taxes, a tender is equivalent
TO payment, either being sufficient to de-
Drive the collecting officer Of authority for
action, and making every subsequent step
illegal and void.
4 These coupons are not "bills of credit
in the constitutional sense, because, al
though having many of the attributes OF
money, they were not intended to circulate
as money for the ordinary purposes of SO
ciety.
5. An action by taxpayer, after tender
Of coupons Tor taxes, against tax collector
enforcing void law Of the State, who, hay
ing refused such coupons, proceeds by seiz,
ure of the plaintiffs property 10 enforce the
collection of such taxes, is an action against
him personally as a wrong doer and is not
|
amendment to the Constitution.
6. Such defendant so sued who seeks to
Justify by the authority of the State is bound
TO establish his defense, and in order to
complete it he must produce valid law ol
the State which constitutes his commission
a. its agent and warrant for his act.
I. The act of the Legislature of Virginia,
OF January 26, 1852, requiring tax-collectora
10 receive, in discharge of taxes, gold, silver,
United States Treasury notes, national bank
currency and nothing else, and thereby for
bidding the receipt Of coupons issued under
the act of March go 1871, in payment there
fore. is not law Of the State of Virginia,
because it impairs the obligation off its con-
tract and is annuletl by the Constitution OF
the United States.
S. The State has passed no such law, for
it cannot; and what it cannot do in con,
temptation of the law it has not done. The
Constitution of the United States and its
own contract, both irrepealable by any act
on IFS part, ore the law of Virginia, and that
law made it the duty of the defendant to re-
ceive the coupons rendered in payment OF
taxes and declared every step to enforce
the tax thereafter taken to be without war
rant Of law, and therefore a wrong. This
strips the defendant OF his official character
and convicts him ola personal violation 0!
the plaintiffs rights, for which he must per-
sonally answer.
9. 1t is 40 objection 10 the remedy IN such
cases that the statute, the application of
which in the particular case is sought to be
prevented, is not void on its face, hut is
complained of only because its operation IN
the particular instance marks violation OF
constitutional right.
10. In cases of detinue the action is purely
defensive on the part of the plaintiff. Its
object is merely to resist an attempted wrong
and to restore the status in quo as it was
when the right to be vindicated was IN
vaded.
IL. The suit authorized by the act Of the
| General Assembly of Virginia OF January
! &c 1882, against the collector of taxes re-
fusing to accepta tender of coupons to re.
cover back the amount paid under protest
is no remedy at all for the breach OF the
contract which required him to receive the
coupons IN payment. The taxpayer and
coupon holder has right to say he will not
| pay the amount a second time, and insisting
upon his tender as equivalent to payment.
resist the further exacion, and treat as
wrong.d oer the officer who seiZ-s his prop.
erty to enforce it.
y Neither can it be considered an ade-
quate remedy, in view of the supposed ne
cessiiy for summary proceedings III matters
of revenue and The convenience of the
Stale. which requires that the prompt col
lection Of taxes should not be hinGered or
embarrassed, for the revenue system must
yield to the contract which tho State has
lawfully made, and the obligation of which
| by the Constitution it is forbidden to impair.
13 The act of the General Assembly Of
Virginia of JANUARY 26; 1882, and the
amendatory act of March Is, 1854, are un
constitutional and void, because they i'm
pair the obligation of the contract of the
State with the coupon holder, under the
act Of March 80, 1871. 1t is not practicable
to separate those parts which repeal and
abolish the actions of trespass and trespass
on the case and other particular forms of
action as remedies for the taxpayer who
has rendered his coupons in payment of
taxes from the main objects of the acts
which that prohibition was intended to of.
factuate. and il follows that the whole of