Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1885-04-22
VIRGINIA COUPON CASES.
rHE BOSDHOLDERs TRIUMPH IN THE
DECBIOx OF THE U. 3. COURT.
The Right Of Virginia Coupon Holders to Pay
Taxes I'm Coupons Af,rmed-The Remedy
Against the Tax Collector = Judge
Matthew Elaborate Opinion.

court In the Virginia debt rcpudatOn /
cases, was rendered on behalf Of the majority
of the court by Judge Matthews. 1t was In
the suit of Thomas Poindcxtcr VS.. Samuel q. |
Greenhow, and went directly 10 the question
of the effect of a tender for taxes Of tho |
coupons of the bonds of March 30 1871, and
the right of the Virginia taxpayers to bring |
suits for damages against the tax collectors
for lcvying on his property after a tender of
tax-receivable coupons. The opinion Of
Judge Matthews was as follows:
I. BY the terms of the, funding act of the
state OF Virginia OF March 30, 1871, and the
issue Of bonds and coupons in virtue Of tho
same, q contract was made between every |
| coupon holder and the state that such c0ti-
pOns should f" he receivable at and after |
mands due the state - Gie right of the cou-
pom holder under which was to have his
coupons received for taxes when offered, and
any act Of the state which forbids the receipt
| OF these coupons for taxes Is violation Of |
the contract, and void as against coupon l
1 holders.
2 The faculty of being receivable in pay |
! ment OF taxes was ofthe essence of the right, |
as 1t constituted a self executing remedy In
the hands of the taxpayer, for it became
thereby the legal duty ofevery tax collector
to receive such coupons In payment OF taxes,
/ upon an equal footing and with equal effect
as though they were money, and after
/ tender Of such coupons duly made for that
purpose, the situation and rights of the tax
Il
what they would have been II he had made
like tender in money.
3. 1t Is well settled by many decisions oi
this court that for the purpose of affecting
lawful tender of payment Is equivalent to &c
| tual payment, either being sufficient to dc
prive the collecting officer Of all authority for
e | further action, and making every subsequent
| step illegal and void.
T. The coupons i'm questions are not bills
+ | of credit in the sense Of the constitution,
}, | which forbids the state I" to emit bills of
| credit" because, although issued by the
state Of Virginia on It's credit and made re-
4 | ceivable in payment of taxes, and negotiable
% | 80 as to pass from hand to hand by delivery
70 merely, they were not intended to circulate
l. | as money between individuals and between
| the government and individuals for the or
| dinary purposes Of society.
Is 8. An action or suit brought by taxpayer
er who has duly rendered such coupons in pay
10 ment of his taxes against the person who,
~ under color of office as tax collector, and act
10 ing in the enforcement of void law passed
q by the legislature Of the state, having refused
IL of the property of the plaintiff to enforce the
he collection of such taxes Is an action or SUIT
a | against him personally as q wrOngdoer, and
e. is not against the state within the meaning Of
We | the seventh amendment to the constitution
ly | of the United States.
~ g. Such defann ant, sued as wrong-doer,
st who seeks 80 substitute the state In his place,
no or to U,sify by the authority of the state, OF
!, TO defend on the ground that The state has
adopted his act ana exonerated him, cannot
ue rest on the bare assertion of his defense, but
ily Is bound to establish it and as the state is
in | political corporate body which can act only
through agents and command only by law
ed in order to complete his defense he mus
an produce valid law of the state which con
in stitutes his commission as its agent and I
III warrant for his act.
,e; 7. The act of the general assembly Of Vir
,od | ginia, of January 26 1882 "To provide 70
~ the more efficient collection Of the revenu
to-
at schools, and to pay interest on the publ
debt" requiring tax collectors to receive, II
discharge of the taxes, license taxes and othe
cts dues, gold, silver, United States treasur
all notes, national bank currency, and nothing
a. else, and thereby forbiddng the receipt {
ip' coupons issued under tthe act OF March 81
es. 1871, i'm payment there for, although II Is
nm legislative act of the government Of Virgins
m is not law of the state of Virginia, becaus
ofs it impairs the obligation of its contract an
are is annulled by the constitution of the Unite
60 | States.
u" & The state has passed no such law, for
yer cannot and what 1t cannot do in contempl
ton of law IL has not done. The constitutio
OF the United States and its own contrac
ma the law Of Virginia, and that law made 1t III
los- duty of the defendant to receive The coapoI
rendered in payment OF taxes, and declare
every step to enforce the tax thereafter take
to be without warrant OF law and therefore
~ | wrong. This strips the defendant of his OFF
Drs' cial character and convicts him of persons
hat | violation of the plaintiffs rights for whic
-, he must personally answer.
VI" q. 1t is no objection to the remedy in sue
ects that the statute the application of whic
,eir in tho particular ease Is sought to be pr
, at | vented Is not void on its face, but Is con
planned of only because its operation i'm Il
cai particular instance works a violation OF
ple constitutional right for the cases are hume
en- Gus where the tax laws of state, which
ess. their general and proper application are pc
fectly valid, have been held to become vol
,eo- i'm particular cases either as unconstitution
,rth | regulations in commerce or rs violations
fac. contract prohibited by the constitution,
ont because in some other way they operate
and secured to him by the constitution of Il
nj n | United States
ha, 10. In cases of detinue the action Is pure
defensive on the part of the plaintiff. It's o
OF iect is merely to resist an attempted wror
up and 10 restore the status I'm quo as Il was whit
was the right to be vindicated was invaded. 1t
, a. analogous to the preventive remedy of i
junction, in equity, where that jurisdictit
and Is invoked, of which frequent examples @
hat cur in cases to prevent the illegal taxation
uan national banks by state authorities.
. IL. The suit authorized by the act of Il
en- 1882, against the collector of taxes refusing
,uc accept tender of coupons, to recover back Il
hat amount paid under protest. Is no remedy
na' all for the breach of the contract which I
this quired him TO receive the coupons i'm pa
lew ment The taxpaye and coupon holder h
.be a right to say he will not pay the amount
49,. second time, ana, insisting upon MS tend
an' as equivalent to payment, resist the furth
exacton, and treat rs wrongdoer the of
Ger who selves his property to enforce
The right to pay in coupons cannot be treat,
Ays as mere right of set-off, which Is part of Il
! in remedy merely when given by the gener
teer law, and therefore subject to modification
,rce repeal, because the law which gave 1t is al
-. a contract, and therefore cannot be change
this without mutual consent
II Neither can II be considered an ad
quate remedy In view of the supposed n
- cesity for summary proceedings In matters
u l'revenue, and the convenience of the stat
day which requires that the prompt collection
of taxes should. not be hindered or emba
,eL rassed for the revenue system must yield
-. the contract which the state has lawful
'ek' made, and the obligation of which by Il
It's constitution ii is forbidden to impair.
cent b. The act of the general assembly
tho Virginia of January % 1852 and the amend
tory act of March 10, 1884, are unconstit
Is tional and void, because they impair Il
ing, obligation of the contract of the state wi
nm the coupon-holder under the act OF March
MO 1871, and that being the main object of Il
me- two acts, the vice which invalidates the
Ike, pervades them throughout and In all the
en- provisions. 1t Is not practicable to separa
| those parts which repeal and abolish the 4,