Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-02-16
DISQUALIFICATION l6, 1885,
pefying Both Governments.


pretence that the Supreme Court OF
the United States has decided that
person offering unyerified coupons for
taxes may 60 on with his business
without q license, has not leg
to stand upon. 1t is an as
sumption absolutely without foun-
dation. and it amszes us that
any lawyer should for one moment
have yielded to the false impress
sion. in Sands rS. Edmunds the Su-
preme Court decided that SANDs's
proper course was to tender coupons
for verifcation, pay the money for his
license, and have the money refunded
to him if his coupons turned out to be
genuine. So as to every case that has
ever been decided by that court. They
all assume that the coupons must be
verified, as required by the act OF JAN
uary IA, 1882. But read the following;
We have telegram from Richmond
to-day, saying Eight parties have
rendered coupons for licenses, been re-
fused, and are now selling their goods
publicly without molestation. John
A. HambletOn g. Co.
Thus boasts a firm of Baltimore
brokers. 1t is not simply a law OF
Virginia that was thus treated with
contempt in the capital of the Com
monwealth, but it is a law that has
three times been pronounced constitu-
tional by the Supreme Court OF the
United States, and therefore law that
is necessarily in force now.
Why did not the Supreme Court de-
eide in the cases Of RoYALL, CHAFFIN.
and BARRY that coupons must be
proved to be genuine? We answer, for
the best ofreasons-- namely, because that
question was not only not presented in
those cases, but had already been decid-
cd. 1t might as well be asked, why
did not the court in 1888, when it
decided that coupons must be verified,
decide the points decided in the cases
we have Just referred to? For one Of
the same reasons-namely, because the
question was not raised in 1883 as to
whether license-tax stood upon the
same footing as any other tax so far as
being paid for in coupons was con-
cerned.
In Royal rs. Virginia the Supreme
Court decided that person applying
for license stood before the law ex-
actly as any other taxpayer.
In 1883 the same court decided that
all taxpayers must comply with the
act of January IA, 1882, which, that
court said, was a valid enactment
which was, they said, law that did
not impair the obligation of contract.
Can a man who wishes to pay taxes on
real estate tender nrerifed coupons,
and then defy the officer to levy? No.
We repeat that this question was not
raised in BARRY's case, nor CHAT
FINS case, nor RoYALL's case. These
cases were made up by Mr.. ROYAL
to accomplish his own objects, and they
presented for consideration only such
points as he chose to present. But in
SANDs's case, the Supreme Court by
its decision reaftirmed the validity Of
the act of January IA, 1882, and de-
cided that SANDS was entitled to the
protection Of that act, and that court
ordered the court below to take further
proceedings in accordance with that
opinion. Are the people to be treated
as idiots, and the laws of the Common
wealth. declared to be valid enactments
by the Supreme Court, to be defed
What says the act Of January IA, 1882:
We quote:
Section l. " BE il enacted, &c., Tha,
! whenever any Taxpayer shall
tender to any person whose duty it il
to collect or receive taxes any paper
purporting to be coupons"
"Any taxpayer" Remember, nov
that the Supreme Court decided ii
ROYALS case that license tax wa
just like any other tax, and you vii
see at once that Q license-tax-payer i
Just as much bound to obey the sbov
Law as any other taxpayer.
And once more let US impress upol
you that RoYALL gained his case be
cause no question was raised as to tn
genuintness Of the coupons he had ten
dered. If Judge STAPLES had ha'
the right to raise that question in tn
Supreme Court Of the United States
that court would have been bound Il
decide that RoyALL had not paid hi
licenss-tax and therefore was not en-
titled to practice law. So in BARRY''
and CHAFfIN's cases, il the sam'
point could have been raised in tn
Supreme Court, that court would have
been compelled to decide that the col
lecting officer had right to levy. A
We have heretofore shown, TAYLOR
plea that CHArFIN had not veriae'
his coupons was offered too late.
In ROYALS case the Court said
"Mot the party complyisg Nth III
sfatufcry conditions Is entitled IS Q
right 70 the license Is conclusive" DC
Mr.. royal had " complied rsA al
nc statutory conditions 80 fer Is sp