Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1886-12-04
The Ownership of.hc COUPONS.

lent only to reiterato what l have already
written with thu following addition.
This discussion is confined eXclusiyef; to
case in which the treasurer, after tender
and refusal of coupons has sold The proper.
ty of the tax payer, collected the proceeds
and receipted the tax bill. The question is.
Whose .are the coupons? and this depends
upon the antecedent question, Who is en-
titled to the money colected2
At the outset, l must be pardoned for
asking what the State wants with the cou.
| pons? 1T be true, as is contended. that
the tax was not paid when the tax bill was
recelpted, then 1t Is money, not coupons, that
Is wanted. Why claim the coupons in pref.
erence to any other property Of the taSpav-
er, unless they are peculiarly and succifical.
ly designed for tho payment Of taxes. Then.
again, suppose the rendered coupons were
forged, stolen, reissued, or otherwise faulty,
land under tho Riddlcberger theory. they
might be any or all ofthese) what does the
State lose if she never gels them? Does
she insist on having those Identical coupons
with all their flaws and nninfrmi,ies? If they
are worth having now, why were they ever
refused? Certainly their genuiaeness has
not yet been demonstrated. "Tho LADY
doth protest too much J" in fact she confess
es, when she takes this position, that the
Taxpayer had valid claim against her on
| the face Of his coupons aUithoM syllable OF
proof us TO their commences, and that they
ought TO have been accepted in the first in
stance. But to proceed
!. Who as entitled TO the money?
In my former article said that the lax.
collecting officer and his sureties were cs
topped to deny the right of the common
wealth to have the money collected by him
in the form of taxes, though he acted in
obedience to an unconstitutional law.
Even an unconstitutional tax onca col.
lected the collector has no right to retain
but should account as in other cases. shys
MIR. Cooley, on the authority of numerous
decisions. IF he (the COLLECTOR received
the money to the use of the public. be
should account for it, and it is immaterial
that those who paid it might successfully
have resisted the collection from them. 1t
has been elsewhere shown that q cole ctor
de tdcto, or even an intruder, will not be
permitted to resist the demand Of the State
upon him for taxes collected, by showing
that he collected them without due author
lty. The principles here stated
are applicable not merely to the case Of n
defect in the official authority, but to the
ca Sc, also, inswhch defects either technical
or substantial might have been urged to
the tax the officer has enforced. The sub
stantial fact is that he has received money
for the State, and, having done SO, it is not
his privilege to pause and question the right
OF the State to receive it, but he should pay
it over and leave those from whom it was
received to present claim to the State for
the refunding, if they deny its right to re
tain it," Cooley on Taxation. 49S (see also
100 y.
In Byrne Us. State, 80 Miss. 6SS, Byrne
and his suretics were sucl fer the amount
of taxes collected by him a. sheriff. The
sureties pleaded that he was not tax co!iec-
tor and that the money no received was
collected without authority Of law The
court admitting that it was doubtful
whsther or not he was legally charged with
the duty OF collecting taxes, and resting Tho
case on the doctrine Of esloppel, went on to
say: Applying to him and his sureties
we'll defined principles Of luw, they ought
TO be estopped 10 deny that there rested
upon him, both TO the state ard county, the
full responsibilities OF the office OF tax col.
lector By means of it Byrne has gotten
the public moneys. He should not DO al
lowed, after enjoying its benefits, to retain
the public money by reputation OF the
authority under which he made the collec-
TONS"
Many other cases to the same effect might
be cited. Clearly, then, the money is not
the oGcer'S
.. IFho is entitled 10 the coupons ?
But can the State take this pcstlou "a per-
sou claiming aud appearing to be my officer
and to act under ray authority, has sold your
property, collected the proceeds and given
| ni,,tf pr
federal decisions, he was not my officer, he
acted without lawful authority and will
not accept the money thus collected by him.
l maintain that your tax is still due"
ho.d that the State cannot take this po-
sition. She cannot repudiate tho act of her
officer, although the law by which she
sought to give him the authority and power
to do the act, was unconstitutional and void.
La other words, tho State is estopped to de-.
ny that he was her officer, empowed to en-
force the collection of taxes by the seizure
and sale Of property that tho money 50
collected by him was received rs taxes or
public funds and that the person whose
property was seized and sold, has paid his
tax and is under no further obligation to the
State On account of that particular tax
bill.
The fact that he was mere ministerial
omCer acllng IN obedience TO the plain man.
date of the law as he received it from the
State, materially strengthens the case in
view of the authorities. And here l do not
mean to say that an officer cannot pronerlv
refuse to seize and sell property under the
mandate of an unconstitutional law, if he
chooses to raise the question of constitu.
tlonality. That is very different case from
those in which the officer has actually
obeyed the legislative command and col.
lected the money.
1t is universally held that the declarations
ola State announced through her legisla-
ton, bind her 10 an admission of their yaIidi.
ty and sutficiency, even in matters of grant
and contract, 80 far as she is concerned. and
his is true, a tortiori, when her regularly
qualified officer acts in obedience to an ex
press legislative mandate.
1T is clear that the State may be estop-
ped by the acts of its legislature" Enfield
4. Permit 5 n. H., $50.
The doctrine of estoppel applies to the
State just as it does to Individuals The
State cannot be heard in this action to denv
! me pDOSt IUfjODU1t{U nj