Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-06-27
Several Questions Answered.

Several Questions Answered..
CHARACTERISTICS, June %, '85.
Editor Of Dispatch: Will you be
kind enough to answer in your columns
the four questions following:
1. Has the Court OF Appeals passed
upon the validity Of tho act imposing
special license tax Of 81 900 on coupon
brokerss and il so, what was its deci-
sion?
I, We understand that the Judge oil
the Hastings Court of this city decided
the law to be unconstitutional ; where
upon the States counsel, Mr.. WyND-
HAN r. MEREDITH, took the case to
the Court of Appeals, which has not
tried il, though it has been there since
last November. It's believed to be the
duty of Attorney-General BLAIR to
call it up.
2. What was the decision Of that
court in the matter Of the tax of s250
ON coupon-lawycrss
2. The tax on the lawyers awaits the
action of the Court of Appeals upon
the tax on brokers in the State courts.
Mr.. RoYALL, we think, tried to get it
declared unconstitutional by Judges
WAITE, BOND, and HUGHES, but
failed.
3. What was the decision Of the
United States Supreme Court in the case
of Moore. who rendered coupons in pay
ment Of license taxY and what the deci-
sion of our court in the same matter?
3. In Moore Us. Greenhow, the petit
toner claimed that he had the right 10
pay coupons for license, against the
provisions of the fifteenth section Of an
act of the General Assembly Of Vir-
ginis, March Is, 1884, requiring that
all licenses should be paid in gold or
silver coin, United States Treasury
notes, or national bank notes, and not
in coupons; and against another act,
March Z, 1884. to the same effect; and
he asked for peremptory mandamus
to compel the Treasurer Of the city of
Richmond TO receive coupons from him
in payment Of his license. This writ
was denied in the Circuit Court Of
Richmond, and its decision was sus-
tanned by the Court of Appeals; and
the Supreme Court of the United
States affirmed the judgment Of the
Court Of Appeals Of Virginia, because
the case came within the exact terms
of the decision in Antoni rs. Wright,
United States, 100, according to
which the plaintiff in error is RENTED
to the remedy provided by the act of
January IA, 1S82''-Coupon-Killer
No. i. The syllabus Of the case says:
eff taxpayer seeks by mandamus
to compel the officers Of the State to
receive coupons in payment Of taxes.
he must pursue the remedy prescribed
in the act of January IA, 1882, and
that although the tax be license tax"
See the Virginia Coupon Gases, PAM
phlet by JAMES c. LAMB, editor of
the Virginia Lao Jouraal-Aoore Us.
Grssnhor, PIP. 62-63.
4. Has not the United States Circuit
Court recently decided that payment
Of coupons previously rendered to and
refused by the ofBcer) to its own clerk,
pending q suit against the officer, is
complete payment to the officer, exone-
rating the taxpayer from all further
responsibility If the coupons are genu-
ineg
4. Judges BOND and HUGHES
United States Courp recently decided
that person owing State taxes, who
had rendered to q county treasurer
coupons in payment thereof, should de-
liver the coupons TO the clerk Of their
court, and that the clerk should de-
post them in one Of the national banks
II Richmond to be delivered to the
county treasurer when he should call
for them and pay the bank charges for
their safe keeping; that the clerk Of
said court should give the person who
delivered the coupons = receipt fol
them a. payment Of the tax-bill, and
that the county treasurer should b.
restrained from collecting said tax-bil
by levy or from returning the propert,
delinquent. Nothing was said in tn,
decree about the genuineness of tn,
coupons, and it would appear tina
genuine and counterfeit or spurious cou
! pons are equally entitled to the bsnefi
Of this decree. 500
a Our correspondent viii observe tina
though the late decisions Of the Su
prsme Court decline to entertain juri:
diction against . State, yet thi
decree does entertain such jurisdictio
and takes control Of the States rev,
nue., and, through its Federal clerl
deposits II in . bank subject 70 its Of
der; and that this mode Of recsivin
coupons Is directly in the teeth I
the late decision Of the Unite
States Supreme Court, which PR
seribes that they shall Be receive
according to the requirements 4
Coupon-Killsr No. 1. On the cor
trary, Judge wELLSoRD's late dec
aion N CAa6vs o. Taylor, in the Gin
cult Court Of Henrico, strictly follow
his ruling Of the Supreme Court.
~ Xafinn eava NJ Ne KpyFrx