Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-02-14

yipbt TO prosecute. As to the pIaintlif
in error. the act OF the General Assem-
bly, of Virginia forbiddiDg payment oil
his license tax in It's coupons, receivable
for that tax by q contract protected by
the Constitution Of the United States
is unconstitutional, and its constitn-
tionality infects and nullifles the ante
cedent legislation OF the State, OF which
it becomes part when applied, as 10
this case, to enforce an unconstitutional
enactment against party not only with
out fault, but seeking merely to exer-
else a right secured to him oy
the Constitution. 1t is no answer
to the objection of unconstitu-
tionality, as was said in Po,nderter
rs. Greenhor, ubi supra, "that the
statute whose application in the par
ticular case is sought to be restrained
is not void on its face, but is COM
planned of only because its operation 10
The particular instance works a viola
ton of a constitutional right for the
cases are numerous where the tax-lsws
of State, which in their general and
proper application are perfectly valid
have been held to become void in par
ticular cases, either as unconstitutional
regulations Of commerce or as viola
tons Of contracts prohibited by the
Constitution, or because in some other
way they operate to deprive the party
10 ylGipg of right secured to him
Soi"p,ai"'. - Intuition of the United
by the ConS-,non
In the present casto - p'obta;n.
error has been prevented fr6hh IN
ing license to practice his professiBl
in violation of his rights under the Con-
stitution Of the United States. To pun
ish him for practicing it without
license thus withheld is equally a de-
NAL of his rights under the Constitu-
ton of the United States, and the law,
under the authority of which this is at
tempted, must on that account and in
his case be regarded as null and void.
As the sum demanded for the license
is a tax, the provision for the punish
ment of one who pursues his profession
without a license is a part Of the revenue
system of the State, and is means
merely Of enforcing payment OF the tax
itself, or OF penalty for not paying it.
1t is legally equivalent to civil action
of debt upon the statute, and its sub
stantial character is not changed by
calling the default a misdemeanor and
providing for its prosecution by informa-
ton. The present case, therefore, stands
precisely, so far as the constitutional
questions arising in it are affected, as if
it were a civil action in which the
Commonwealth Of Virginia was plaintiff
seeking to recover the amount due on
account of the tax and penalty. In that
aspect no one would doubt that it
would be a perfect defence that the de-
PENDANT had previously paid the de-
mand, or, what we have held to be
legally equivalent, had rendered the
amount in the coupons of the State,
receivable in payment by an irrepeala-
bic contract, but which the appointed
authorities Of the State had wrongfully
refused to receive. Such, as we con-
ceiye it, is the present case. The
State of Virginia has sued the defend
ant for the recovery of a tax
which he offered to pay when it be-
came due in its own coupons, which
by the law of its contract were receiva-
bic in satisfaction Of the demand. Ger
tainly the State cannot be permitted to
I recover against its own contract from
tbeYher contracting party, as to whom
the nlyAdefault alleged is that he has
performed the contrast on his part e..
The judgments of the Sr'eme U ST
Of Appeals of Virginia and Of theS..uUS t-
ings Court of the city of Richmond,
Va. are accordingly reversed, and the
cause is remanded to said Hastings
Court, with instructions to take further
proceedings therein in accordance with
law and in conformity with this opinion.