Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-10-16
SATURDAY .......OCT0BER lG, 1886.
Judge Bonds Latest.

which he had given in other coupon cases.
lie said
"Tbe Court instrllcts the jury that the
plaintiffs were under no obligation to pay
their taxes in money and surrender their
co,pons for identification and Veriiicati0n,
but they had right, under the law, to
stand upon their tender OF coupons and
refuse 10 pay In money aud surrender their
coupons for identification"
Living In the great city Of Baltimore, and
knowing and caring little or nothing about
or for the old State OF Virginia. Judge
BoSD has possibly taken not much pains to
inform himself a. TO the real merits Of the
Virginia coupon cases. II counsel have
not called his attention particularly to the
poipts decided in the numerous coupon
cases which have gone up to the Supreme
Court OF the United States from this State,
he has probably cOntented himself with
cursnry reading of the opinions IN those
cases. We propose to show that the in
structions quoted above cannot be recon.
ciled with the rulings and decisions OF the
Supreme Court Of the United States. which
has always held that the State OF Virginia
has the right to require the genuneness OF
the coupons to be proved.
The act under which the State sets up
this claim is the one which was involved in
the case a AntOni Is. 6reenhOlo, 20 be
found in United States reports. S. c.,
pages III, us, and 40. That law requires
the coupons to be received for yerlh;alion'
but requires the taxpayer 10 pay his taxes
at the same time, he 10 recover his money
from the Treasury il the coupons are found
to be genuine. And here is what the SUI
preme Court OF the United States said on
this point:
az. As to the payment OF the taxes in
advance:
ain this connection it must be borne in
mind that the legislation the validity OF
which is involved relates alone 10 the coll
lection Of taxes levied under the authority
of the State for the purposes OF revenue.
Promptness in the payment OF taxes by the
citizen is As important As pTOmptneSs by the
state in the discharge OF Its own obliga-
lions. In fact, ordinarily the last cannot he
done without the first. Hence. under the
revenue system OF the United States the
collection OF the revenue in the manner
prescribfd by law cannot be restrained by
judicial proceedings. The only remedy for
an illegal exaction is payment under pro-
test and suit TO recover back the money
maid. The reason is. that As it IL necessary
The Government should he able IN calculate
with certainty on Its revenues, ii is better
that the individual should be required TO
nay what is demanded under the forms OF
law, and sue TO recover back what he pays,
than the Government should be embar-
raised In it, operations by a stay OF cOllec-
ton.
"What the Legislature has done is only
TO say that before this remedy can be re-
sorted TO the amount due for taxes shall be
deposited in the Treasury. That being
done the suit may 20 on. IL in the suit It
shall be determined that the coupons ten-
dered are genuine and in law receivable,
the collector will be required to accept
them, and the money will be restored. II,
however, the judgment is against the cou'
pon.bolder the taxes will be paid, and the
State will have suffered no Inconvenience
for want OF it, Just revenues. Looking a.
the case, therefore, az one affecting the col
lection of the public revenue, we cannot
see that the requirement ol the advance OF
the taxes as a condition to the employment
Of the remedy Is such an impairment OF the
contract az makes the requirement invalid
requiring the money to he paid in advance
was pronounced valid. The above quota
ton settles that point. Now as To the other
point. The Supreme Court said
"Then as 10 the manner Of the trill.
The deposit Of the coupons with the Court
Of Appeals, " the suit is 10 so on, cannot
he considered unreasonable. II the trial
had been conducted under the old law the
coupons would have TO be at some time
surrendered, and the precise stage OF the
case in which this il 10 be done is by no
means important so far a. the present ques-
ton Is concerned. Neither does the posi-
tive requirement oi an issue as to the gen.
uineness and receivabiitty OF the coupons
and trial by Jury affect the validity OF the
law. Under the old law this same issue
might have been raised and the same trial
by Jury required. IL certainly is not an
impairment OF an old remedy TO make that
imperative which before was discretionary.
"Without pursuing the subject further
we say that IN our opinion the fourth sec
ton OF the act Of lSS2 does not impair the
obligation OF any contract which the State
has made with the holders Of ITS interest
coupons"
That fourth section thus pronounced
constitutional is the section which requires
the coupons to be received for verlGcltion,
e, but the taxes to be paid in money never
theiesss.- Judge BoSD's latest instructions
were directly in conflict with that decision
But IL maS be said that later decisions
have modified the one referred to above
Not Of all. We argued this point IN Febru
airy last, and will repeat here the argumen
We made al that time.
We invite the readers attention TO Ia
n explicit declarations OF the Supreme Cour
on the point mentioned. In Sands Us
EdmandS the plaintiffs petition for man
damus il fully set forth in the opinion o
the Supreme Court. In that petition SAND
ayers that he demanded that EDaUNDs, 4
county treasurer, should receive the cou
pom " for tie purpose Of Identification ana
perifoation, as prescribed by the law o.
Virginia, but the treasurer refused to re-
ceiye tho coupon for any purpose THAT
eper." But we need not quote the words
OF the petition. The reader win see for
himself that the one question raised In this
case was as TO sAyDs's right TO have his
coupon There was but one] received "Jor
Identification and rerifcati0n." There
was no other point decided in this case.
And what says the Supreme Court :
Read:
ellis (sands'sl remedy TO have them re-
ceiyed for yerificatlon, and 10 recover back
the money paid for his license, is secured
to him by the terms Of the act Of January
IA, igs2, which for such purposes was up
held by this court ~ valid enactment, In
AntoRf rs. Greenhoso."
Therefore the Supreme Court remanded
the cause to the Circuit Court with 10.
structions TO take further proceedings Sac
eording TO this opinion "--that lie, grant the
writ Of msndamus ordering EDsUgDs 10
receive sAKDs's coupon for ver6cation.
IN the opinion In Cag9sn rs. TayIor the