The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1885-06-04
Tennessee VS.. Sneed.


The Wing furnishes the following stats
ment Of the Tennessee case after which
the 'Coupon-klller, passed by the Vir-
ginia Legislature in 1882 was fashioned.
The facts given will prove interesting ard
instructive, as well as useful, ~ this time,
when the whole debt question is about To
be again discussed. The Wing says
In Otto's United States Supreme Court
Reports, Volume VII. page 50, ct. seq, is
given tie deei. Oh in Tennessee as. Sneed
('l0t 81 7Qd rs. Tennessee). The syllabus OF
the decision is as follows.
1. The Legislature of o state does not impair
the Obligation OF a contract by enlarging, limit
ing, or altering the modes OF proceeding for en-
forcing, provided that the remedy be not with
held, nor embarrassed with conditions and re-
sLrictlons winch seriously impair the value ~
the right.
2. 'lhe act OF the Legislature Of Tennessee,
providing that there shall be no other remedy
In any case OF the collection OF revenue or at
tempt to collect revenue illegally, or attempt
to collect revenue in funds ouly receivable by Il
collector of taxes under The law The sane be-
Ing other or different funds than such as the
taxpayer may tender or claim tie right to pay,
MG1l 6y paying the Tar under protest and within
thirty Gays thereafter sueing the collector 10
recover 1t, the Judgment, if for the taxpayer to
be paid in preference to the other claims on the
Treasury, does not leaUe party 2vithot an ale
qtesreRedy for asserting ms riqt 10 pdv his Slte
tdreS in certain bits, MADE RECEIy ABLE THERE
FOR under the charter granted to the Bank of
Tennessee in the year 1888, but 9rhich bills the
collector refused 10 dccepf
The 18th section Of the charter of the
Bank OF Tennessee, in 1888, was as fol-
lows
Be it enacted, that the bills or notes OF the
said corporation originally made PAYABLE or
which shall have become payable on demand
In gold or silver coin, SAaU be receiudble at the
Treasury, and by al ftrcoilectors and other pubic
officers, az at payments jar tdres or other moneys
due tie STATE.
Tennessee. in 1873. passed a series Of
acts directing that the Bank notes ten
dered III this case should not be received
for taxes, &c, repeating the remedy by
mdnda.n mas, &c. The unanimous opinion
OF the Supreme Court Of the United States,
after full argument and after an examina-
ton Of the authorities bearing on the
poults raised was us follows
II zee assasae tact prior to 1873 NE reaiog nad o-
ho'5'g 10 prosecute his ctaas against the State bg
nt0ntt@Rus, and thar by the statutes of that year
NE further use OF That form was prohibited to
! him, the question remains. whether an effect
qal remedy was left TO him or provided for him.
ne "th6 me reputation ~ the st0tte gaze him an
0buH6dft means q eRfOrcillg S1ch right as he pos
seSseo. ltprovided that he might pay Ills claim
10 the collector under protest. giving notice thereof
| to the Comptroller of the Treasury; that at any
time within thirty days thereafter he might sue
the officer making the collection; that the case
4
| and, if found i'll favor of the plaintiff on the
merits, the court should certify that the same
| was wrongfully paid and ought to be refunded
| and the Comptroller should thereupon issue his
warrant therefor, which should be paid i'll pref
! erence to other claims on the Treasury.
| INts REMEDY Is Sint)te and eUec$tCe A suit at
| law to recover money unlawfully exacted is as
| speedy as easily tried. and less complicated,
| than q proceeding by Ga0ndGf1US. Every attor-
ney knows how to carry on the former while
many would be embarrassed by the forms of
| the latter. Provision is also made for prompt
| payment of the amount by the State. if tudg-
ment is rendered against the officer on the
| merits.
I've think there is no ground for The assertion nat
enforce the claim set up By the p(di1 This as the
onty question property before u.s. and 2es are Of 2he
opiai0n that ID presents NO GROUND tor Yeueisiay
! ttejQdgmeHt Of The court be{oc.
| The other important questions discussed in
| the opinion Of the court below and argued by
the counsel it is not necessary here to examine
they do not arise at this time.
Mr.. Justice Hunt delivered the opinion
CT the eourt-no one dissenting.
Under this decision the Readjuster
| Coup0n-killers Nos. / and were drawn
and passed and No would have stood
| (as No does stand), but for the Bourbon
acts of liquidation, and especially the act
! OF March -, 1884, denying all recourse
against the collector personally, which
amended Coupou-Killer No. >. making it
an entirely different act from what 1t was
originally, and wholly taking it out Of the
wise scheme of REIMBURSEMENT, as shaped
III accordance with the decision in Tennes-
see as. Snead.