Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1886-10-21


General and Mr.. Tucker say the State is en-
titled to them or $1,000 in money. Their
opinion l take to be correct rather than his.
Deducting these two items of s. 900 each
from SIT ,42S.9 SO, the costs as stated in Mr.
Coopers table, and we have So ,42S 90 as the
true costs of these proceedings.
MIR. Cooper further says:
Judge Bond ruled during the trial that zach
taxpayer had right to retain his coupons, the
State having made his taxes out of him BIZ the
sale of his property"
think he is mistaken.
Mr.. Tucker demanded that the coupons
rendered should be produced in court that
their genuineness might be ascertaned, and
remarked that the plaintiff should have re-
tanned them in order to deliver them to the
treasurer should he demand them.
Judge Bond replied, in substance, that rs
the county treasurer did not refuse to re.
ceive the coupons on tho ground that they
were not genuine, the plaintiff was not com.
PEELED to retain them so as TO have them
ready to deliver should the Treasurer by
this suit be forced to refund the money made
by the levy and then demand them, but
could substitute other genuine coupons if
the Treasurer then had right to demand
payment ofthe tax bill that person ten
| derlng bank notes was not under obligation
to retain the Identical bank notes unless the
refusal to receive them was upon the ground
| that they were not genuine, but could use
them as he please aud deliver other good
money when demanded. Aud, be added,
that the question of the right Of the State TO
the coupons rendered or other genuine cou-
| pons was not raised in the suit at bar.
Judge Bond could not have ruled that the
State made his tdreS ont of the plaintiff by
| the sale Of his property because the ground
| of this action, and the ONLY GROUND was
that the tender of coupons deprived the
STATE of right to make it's taxes by sale
of his property, and that in selling it the
defendant did not act for the State "ihut
he 'caS not her officer her agent or her repre-
sentaticc, and dcted not only rithoM her al.
thority, but contrary 10 her cypress commands"
This Is the language of the Supreme Court
|! in the case CT Poindexter against Green
| how.
This view of the law was enforced against
the protest of the State-and the State must
accept it. Under it she has no right to the
money realized from sale of plaintiffs prop.
erty, but has right to the coupons. The
plaintiff established-mark this, the PLAIN
TIFF Enthusiastically his suit that the
STATE DID NOT TOUCH HIS PRoPERTY-that
a person who was "neither her officer, her
agent, or her representative, acting pot only
,rithout her authority, but contrary to her ca.
press commands" took it and sold it, aud by
his suit he made this person suffer for 50
doing
1t passes comprehension hs1tt1is plaintiff
can now deny the States right to the cou
pons by asserting that the State did seiza
his property and make its taxes by lis sale
After giving his view of the result of these
suits, Mr.. Cooper asks whether You think
the State can stand this.
He has taken limited view CT the mat
ter.
These suits grew out Of the execution Of
the laws Of the State, designed for the col.
lection OF her revenues in money.
How have the means answered the end ?
During the fiscal year just cosed-on
September 30, lSS6-the revenue collected
was 50, 11773 ,437 80, of which only $56, 1SS 80
was paid in coupons forced into the treas.
ury.
This result was accomplished by An ex-
penditure for attorneys fees and court costs
of less than $4,000, including the costs in
the suits just decided, which have not yet
been paid.
| see no reason why the State cannot
stand this to the crack OF doom.
How long can the bondholders stand it?
Very respectfully,
MORTON MARYE,
Auditor OF Public Accounts