Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-10-20
Whose Are the Coupons {?

Our friend OF the Lynchburg AdUdnce
ressserts in the last issue Of his paper the
right Of the taxpayer to the coupons which
he has rendered 10 the collecting officer and
which the latter has refused to accept. The
Advance says:
ain both al the coupon decisions rem
dered last week in the United States Cir
cult Court, sitting in Richmond, il was dis
tinctly announced by Judge Fond, accord
ing 10 our reading, ttat the State has no
light to claim the coupons rendered, but
that they remain the properly OF the owner.
This has been our decision all the time, and
we hope now our good friend o. the Dis
patch will no longer contest that point with
The Advance. There can be no getting
around that plain proportion, for the State
can't possibly claim ss its own what it re-
pudiated as valid property in the first In
stance"
On the contrary, 1t Is impossible that the
taxpayer should set up any valid claim to
those coupons. The Auditor Of the Com
monwealth shows this clearly ~ his letter
which we published yesterday. He holds
that those who suppose that Judge BOND
said what was attributed to him are mis-
taken; and be goes on TO show that Judge
BOND did not render any such decision, or
rather did not express any such opin-
ion, for the all-suficient reason that
the verdict rendered for the plaintiff was
based upon the theory that the State had
had nothing to do with the selzing and
selling Of the plaintiffs property. and there
rnr.ld hay kar obi to d.
mand either money or else the coupons
from the plaintiff. We quote from Audi
tor MARyE's letter as follows:
"Mr. Tucker demanded that the cou-
pons rendered should be produced in court
that their genuineness might be ascertained,
and remarked that The plaintiff should have
retained them In order To deliver them 10
the Treasurer should he demand them.
"Judge Bond replied, in substance, that
as the county treasurer did not refuse TO
receive the coupons ON the ground that
they were not genuine, the plaintiif was
not compelled to retain them so as 10 nave
them ready to deliver should the Treasurer
by this suit be forced 10 refund the money
made by the levy and then demand them,
but could substitute other genuine coupons
II the Treasurer then had right to de-
mand payment O! the tax bill; that per-
son rendering bank notes was not under
Obligation TO retain the identical bank notes
unless the refusal 10 receive them was upon
the ground that they were not genuine,
but could use them rs he pleased and de-
liver other good money when demanded.
And he added that the question OF the
right Of the State TO the coupons rendered
or other genuine coupons was not raised in
the suit at bar.
I.Ae BOND o0piA NO houn r,tla1 that
the State smode his taxes ont Of the plain
to by the sale Of his property because
the ground OF this action, aud the ONLY
GROUND, was that the tender OF coupons
depriIed the STATE Of a right TO make its
taxes by sale OF bis property, and that in
selling II the defendant did not act for the
State that he tpas not her officer, her
egenf or her representative, and acted net
only trtthout her authority, bat contrary to
her express commands This Is the lan.
guage Of the supreme Court In the case Of
Poindexter against Greenhow.
"This view Of the law was enforced
against the protest OF the State-and the
State must accept ii. Under II she has no
. right 10 the money realized from sale OF
plaintiffs property. but has right 10 the
coupons. The plaintiff established
this, the PLAINTIFF EsTADl.fsnED-by his
suit that the STATE DID NOT forcH HIS PRO-
PgRTY-that q person who was neither
her officer, her agent, or her representative,
acting not only tcithom her authority. but
contrary to her express commands took 1t
and sold II, aud by his suit be made this
person suffer for so doing.
ct passes comprehension how this plain
tlf can now deny the States right TO the
coupons by asserting that the State DID
seize his property and make its taxes by It's
SALE"
The reader win see that In saying that
the plaintiff still had right to pay his
taxes In "otber genuine coupons" the
Judge did In effect say that the plaintiff
stIll owed the tax. Judge BOND illustrated
his argument by referring 10 the use OF
bank'pctes. Suppose the plaintiff had ten
dered bank.notes, and the collector had re-
fused to receive them and had levied upon
and sold bis property, wouldn't the debt
still be owing to The. State II the plaintiff ia
suit had recovered actual damages from
the colJectorf How else could he have re.
covered damsgesi BoxD's theory Is that
the State had nothing 10 do with the tres
pas. How, then. could she lose her title
to the coupoDsf
But Mr. MAsYE's argument needs ne