Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-11-04
Those Commons.

To the Editor OF the DtSpdtch:
In the minds OF some OF your readers
this subject has been considerably muddled
by statements pro and con. VIII you
kindly give us an explanation OF several
points:
by Mir. Dulauey and others were not
against the State. but against trespassing
officers, and that the damages given were
against those officers. IL so, what claim
has The State against any property which
NAV have been offered 10 and refused by
those ofiicerss
III. The suits were brought, as we under
stand, not to recover the money which had
been paid TO the State for taxes, but to get
damages from trespassers. III that be so.
how can the award Of damages against the
trespassing officers give right upon the
part OF the State to coupons or any other
property Of the plaintiiiss
lii. We understand that the parties who
sued have receipts in full for their taxes
the taxes having been made out OF other
property after the coupons were refused.
In SO. Il seems to us that that business be-
tween them aud the State was closed, and
that from thai time the coupons were theirs
10 sell or give away or 10 dispose OF in any
way, whether they brought suit for damages
or not. Whether the damages were paid by
the parties sued, or whether II came out OF
the State Treasury, does not seem TO US to
affect the ownership OF the plaintiffs
property. But we ask in good faith. Please
explain. READERS.
ANSWERS.
/. None In the world. Rem dea ie'igtsti.
The State has no claim whatever to any pro-
perty which may have been "offered and
Iefuscdn by her officers. But as her off,
Ger refused 70 receive coupons, and it was
moi the States officer that levied upon bis
property, Mr.. DELANEY has not paid hi:
taxes at all. Therefore, he stu owes hi,
taxes. But IA Judge BOND has decided thai
he can pay them In coupons, and he refuse
to paw IN money, the State can now only
\ make him pay his taxes in coupons. To
this end she may lawfully levy upon
u upon and sell his property IL he re.
fuses 10 pay either Ia money or In
coupons. Judge BOND himself remarked
that the taxpayer need not keep the same
coupons always ready to pay his taxes With,
any more than he would be compelled to
keep the same bank notes II these were re-
fused by the collecting officer. This re-
marx clearly implied that Judge BOND
holds that the taxpayer must have the cou-
pons ready whenever the State demands
them, Notwithstanding that the tax.col-
lector has refused 10 receive them for taxes.
In q word, inssnuch as the States officer
refused 10 receive Mr. DrLASEY's coupons,
and the man who levied upon bis property
was not The States officer. Mr.. DELANEY
must necessarily still owe the State for
taxes.
ii. Right again. The State cannot he
sued; and II II could be. there was no such
cause OF action. There bad been no money
paid 10 the State for taxes. "The award
Of damages" was matter the State had
nothing to do with, and that award could
not give her the right 10 coupons or any
other property Of the plaintiff. lie stl
owes her for bis taxes, however, and this
fact Il Is which gives ber officer the right
70 levy upon and sell bis property IL the