Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1886-12-04

agent, as it is an original, binding ahrma.
! tire act on the part of the State herself made
az The most solemn manner IN which she can
! gire expression to the sovereign WiU" Sam.
| derS q. Hart, 81 Tex S.
Let US nov apply these principles.
| The act of January &c, 1882, declares that
lcedlfh shall receive IN discharge of the taxes
and other dues, gold, silver, ETC., and MOTH
ing else"
The act creating the Indemnity Board
/ speaks CT ANY liability and expenses in
cured by and aug loss or dausge accrued
10 such officer as the result of his collecting
or attempting to collect, enforce or settle
TAXES, ETC."
Here the State, through her legislature, ex-
pressly and distinctly recognizes the tax
collector as her officer charged with the
duty of collecting taxes only in monep or its
e1uruent; and what is so collected as re-.
ceived "in discharge" OF the tax due BY any
property owner. The case. therefore. comes
strictly within the doctrine above laid down.
and consequently the State is estopped TO
deny that her official agent has received her
taxes aud discharged the taxpayers.
Tho tax Was all that she claimed, and
when that was paid to her, no matter how.
she bad gotten all that she Yves entitled to-.
hen how can she have right to the cou-
pons: Only By retunding the money so COL
lected TO the Taxpayer Comm. rs. Philadel-
phia, p Pa. St. 497) and not by indemnify
ing her officers. As long as she retains tho
money she is precluded from claiming the
coupons or any other property of the tax
payer.
But take another view: II The officer is
to INV -. ~
taus collected from the tax payer, the Of
llcer is plainly entitled to a receipt from the
commonwealth for so much money paid in
on account OF taxes In other words, es-
toppals arc mutual, and the State cannot
consistently, with established legal princi-
pies, dsclaim the money by repudiating the
act of her oflicsr as betreen Themselves,
Moreover, since in this view the State would
have no reason to refuse the money on q
settlement with her officer, and since the
officer, as We have seen, could not resist her
demand, if he were inclined to dispute with
her the sufficiency of the authority under
which he obtained the money, there would
be 10 one who had right or an interest 10
raise the question CT constitutionality, and
therefore tho federal law would BIZ inopera
tive because there would be no party aud
no occasion 10 invoke lis application And,
doubtless. all this would actually happen
but 10: The fact that an indemnity was prom
ised to The officer which practically ratified
and adopted his act by anticipation.
But as to third persons land one claiming a
right under tho federal law is q third person in
respect to any law even Of his own State which
denies such right tho case is wholly different
lnasmuch as the federal law is supreme, any right
guaranteed by that law is equally supreme and
| lmpregnable. Hence the State cannot empower
her officer to do what the supreme law prohibits,
| ana II he undertakes to act under such authority
he loses his Official character respect 10 the ucr.
son c'aimiaJ The right and becomes individually an
| swerab!e for his conduct Thus while the State
! Is estopped to deny That he is her officer (snce
she cannot disown her express and positive man
date SIS between themselves. yet third person
asserting u right derived from another and \
cher law may 80 So. He may ignore the void
autho itT and treat the officer as private wrong
dOcr. he need ECt anu indeed cannot, sue the
| State for the money thus wrOngfuly cxtorted
| from him by superior force, but he may waiTe
the wrong Inflicted by tho State and ratify the
| actual though involuntary payment Of his tax :;
and if he then chooses to prosecute his action
against tho officer for the tro:pass the State has
nothing TO do with the proceeding or its results
unlcSS she roltmieer% to do 50.
| Ii tho State should seek to put herself in the
! p!aco OF her officer aud claim that she was the ne.
| tive party in committing tho wrong TIC answer
y
| cial agents. You sought to confer upon your tax
collector the power to deprive me of my property
| III violation of the supreme law Oft the land Now
| since you could not confer that power he did not
legally possess it, and consequently he, not you
being the actual wrong. docr, l am at liberty to
pursLe my remedy against him for tho cost.
! ratity his act III paying my tax as N ght do il
thief had stolen my money and so applied it, aud
you cannot deny that my tax is paid
This seems to be perfectly consistent with the
federal decisions. The Supr me Court of the
| United Stairs has considered the tax collector
solely in his relation to the supreme law and tho
rights guaranteed thereby, and SO fur ho was held
not to be the official impcrsonation or substitute
OF tho State; but as to the relations of the State
anu the officer inter 81, that court has decided
nothing, because no such point was raised
Now, II tho officer is compelled to pay and the
State to receive the monty thus collected it fol-
lows that the tax is psid and tho tax payer dis.
charged and if this be true, tho State has go con.
| ccivablc right to claim tho coupons for she has
her tax in money. What she may choose to do
with the money is another question
By the way, it has been asserted that OK Judges
Staples and Burks are Of opinion that the State is
entitled to the coupons To whom did they ex-
press this opinion and what reasons did they give
| for IL? Until those questions arc answered tic
assertion goes for nothing.
SAML. D. DAVIES.
RICHMOND, Dec. ., 1856.
4