Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-06-16

! (Coup0n-killer NO. -, by winch pro
vision was made for testing the gen.
uineness of all tax-receivable coupons
before they should be received in pay
rnent Of taxes.
Third. The act Of January 26, 1882
(Coupon-Killer No. 2, in force Decem-
Der /, 1882, which provided " that the
several tax-cOllectors Of this Common
wealth shall receive in discharge Of the
taxes, license taxes, and other dues,
gold, silver, United States Treasury
notes, national-bank currency, and no.
thing else" 1t then further provided
a repeal Of the writ Of mandamus
granted by the act Of March 30, 1871
(thc funding bill, and in lieu thereof,
as a remedy to the person offering to
pay his taxes in coupons, right of &C
ton against the officer refusing to re-
ceiye them, provided the taxpayer
should under protest first pay his taxes
in money.
So far as anything of definite char
acter can be cleaned from the very gen.
eral charges referred to it seems to be
asserted:
First. That the 10Th section of the
act OF March Is, 1884, providing that
"all license taxes shall be paid in gold
or silver coin, United States Treasury
notes, or national-bank notes, and not
in coupons" GquOting from the opinion
Of Justice Matthews in the case Of
Moore as. Greenhow,l and the act OF
February I, 1884, regulating the grant
ing of licenses, making the same pro-
vision, being in conflict with the act OF
January Ia, 1882, which provided for
the receipt of coupons in payment of
taxes after they had been verified, had
the effect Of repeating that act.
Second. That it was by reason Of the
amendments to the act of January 26,
1852, that this act was recently declared
to be unconstitutional.
Let these charges be answered in their
order. The reply is very simple one.
If to provide that taxes should only
be paid in money and not in coupons
was to effect the repeal Of the act OF
January IA, 1882, then that act was re-
pealed by the same Legislature that
passed it, for the act of January &c,
1889, before cited,) distinctly provides
that taxes shall be received in gold, sill
yer, &C., and " in nothing else"
Moreover, it is a settled principle
that every lawyer knows that an UNI
constitutional law is no law at all.
Speaking Of this very act of January
%, 1882, the Supreme Court Of the
United States (Poindexter rs. Green
how, decided April 20, 1857 says /:
1.-The State has passed no such law,
for it cannot; and what it cannot do it
certainly, in contemplation Of law, has
not DONE"
The provision Of the act of January
90, 1852, declaring that taxes might
be paid in money and ain nothing
eise," was declared no law at all, and
so also were similar provisions OF the
acts Of March Is, 1884, and February
I. 1884, and hence, being "no law at
all" they could not repeal an act that
was law.
But those who make these charges
must have known Zone OF them GER
tsinly did know that this question had
been distinctly settled by the Supreme
Court Of the United States.
sThe case of Moore Us. Greenhow de
cided May 4, 1850 came under the
acts of February : and March 10, 1884.
Under those acts the officer refused to
accept coupons in payment of the Ii
cense tax. A mandamus was applied
for and the case reached the highest tri-
bunal by appeal. There it was held
that the acts of February 9TH and March
18th were in this respect unconstitu-
tional and void, and "the plaintiff in
error is RENTED TO the remedy pro-
vided by the act Of January, 1882, en-
titled an act to prevent frauds upon
the Commonwealth and the holders OF
her securities in the collection and dis
bursement Of moneys
The validity Of this act was also main.
tanned in the case of Poindexter rs.
Greenhow, which decided the act Of
January 90, 1882, to be unconstitutional.
Thus these acts Of January &c, 1889,
February 7, 1884, and March Is, 1884,
were declared unconstitutional, and the
act Of January Ia, 1882, was distinctly
declared to be valid and operative.
Now for the second specification oil
these charges.
The act of January %, 1882, per-
mitted coupons to be rendered in pay
ment Of taxes, but the officer was re-
quired TO refuse to receive them. The
taxpayer was then obliged to pay I'M
der protest, and he could then sue the
officer for damages. Under this law il
had been habit for taxpayer to ten
der set Of coupons and upon their
being refused by the officer he would
hand the same coupons to his neigh
Dor, who in turn would tender them,
and so on until one set OF cou-
pons would do service for q hun
dred or more taxpayers, and by this
simple method three dollars Of coupons
might stop the payment of three hun
dred dollars of taxes. The amendment
Of March Is, 1884, provided that when
coupons were rendered under the act Of
January &c, 1882, the officer should
seal them in snsenvelope and write the
owners name across them, thus pre-
venting their use in q second tender.
The act Of January 20, 1882, further
provided that the person rendering the
coupon might '.sne the officer" but it
did not define the character Of the suit.
The act Of March l3, 1884, declared
that the suit should not be in trespass
or trespsss on the case, but should be
by petition fled at rules and s'regn-
Isrly maturcd like other actions at
law"
How such amendments could impair
the constitutiopslity Of the act il is
impossible 10 conceive, but in this
matter we ars not Left TO mere argu-
ment,
The case Of Poindexter Us. Green
bow arose before the amendment Of