Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-10-19

Thus the Indemnity Board has expended
l7,42e. 80 In a vain aud Intellectual attempt
| to collect $1,000 of revenue In an illegal
manner.
Taking the items Of this account to be
correct, do they show, as alleged by Mr..
Cooper, that the Indemnity Board has ex-
pended S17.42S.9G in vain and Intellectual
attempt TO collect $1,000 of revenue!
Let us see. Mr.. Cooper overlooked the
fact that the county treasurers against
whom these judgments were obtained took
out of the pockets Of the plaintiffs, by a
sale OF their property, the amount for
which coupons had been tendered-viZ..
$1,000. This money will be used in set
thing these judgments. This sum must,
therefore, be deducted from Mr.. COoper's
footing up OF costs.
Mr.. Cooper has also included In his state
ment another item OF $1,000, which does
not belong TO lt-namely, the coupons
which were rendered by the plaintiffs. This
be did on the assumption that the State
cannot recover these coupons. But the
Attorney. General and Mr.. Tucker say the
State is entitled to them or 1000 IN money.
Their opinion l take TO be correct rather
than his. Deductlng these two items Of
$1,000 each from sl7,42S.96, the costs az
s3,42S.96 as the true costs OF these proceed
ings.
Dir. Cooper further says:
Judge Bond ruled during the trial that
each taxpayer had right To retain MS
coupons the State having made bis taxes
out OF him by the sale OF his property"
think he is mistaken.
MIR. Tucker demanded that the coupons
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 TO
the Treasurer should he demand them.
Judge Bond replied. in substance. that as
the county treasurer did not refuse TO re-
ceiye the coupons ON the ground that
| they were not genuine, the plaintiff was
| not compelled TO retain them so rs 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
| II the Treasurer then had right to de-
mapd payment OF the tax bill that person
rendering bank notes was not under obli-
gallon TO retain the identicsl bank notes
| unless the refusal TO receive them was upon
the ground that they were no. genuine,
but could use them as he pleased aud de.
liver other good money when demanded
And be added that the question OF the
| right OF the State 10 the coupons rendered
or other genuine coupons was not raised In
the smt at bar.
Judge Bond could not have ruled that
the State "mdde his tares ont Of the
plaintiff by the sale Of his property" be
! cause the ground OF this action, and the
| ONLY GROUND, was that the tender OF cou'
pons deprived the STATE Of Alright to max,
lis taxes by sale Of his property, and that
in selling it the defendant did not act fol
the state; "Mdt he todS not her officer, hei
dgent or her representative, and acted not
Oniy trithOut her authority, but contrary Il
her express commands" This is the Ian
guaye oi the Supreme Court in the case oil
PoindexteI against Greenhow.
This view OF the law was enforced against
the Protest OF the State and the State mus
accept Il. Under II she has no right 10 the
money realized from sale OF plaintiffs prop
erty, but has q right to the coupons. The
plaintiff establi.hed-m this, the PLAIN.
TIFF EsTABLIsHED--by his suit that the STATE
DID NOT TOUCH HIS PROPERTY-tbat person
who was "neither HER officer. her agent, %
her representative, acting not only iciIhout
her duthOi'itg, but contrary TO her s1pres,
commands took Il and sold il, and by hi:
suit be made this person suffer for so dong
II passes comprehension how this plain
tiff can now deny the states right To th'
coupons by asserting that the State did seiz'
his property and make its taxes by its sale.
After giving bis view OF the result al
these suits. MIR. Cooper asks whether yol
think the State can stand this.
lie has taken limited view OF the matter
These suits grew out OF the execution o
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 closed-o'
September 80, lSS6-the revenue collecte,
was S2,7I3,4 37.32. OF which only $40, 1856
was paid In coupons forced into the Urea
sury.
This result was accomplished by an ex
pepditure for attorneys fees aud court cost
OF less than $4,000, including the costs II
the suits just decided, which have not We
been paid.
| see no reason why the State eanno
stand this TO the crack OF doom.
How long can the bondhoiders stand IL
Very respectfully,
MORTON MARYE,
Auditor OF Public Accounts,