Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-03-27
Coupons and Licenses.
To the Editor of the Dispatch :

1t appears from your paper thaI
number Of nonresident sample-mer-
chants have rendered coupons Tor instru-
ments purporting to be SUCH in pay
ment Of the license-tax required Of
them, and that, relying upon such ten
der, they are carrying on the business
upon which the tax is imposed.
The Commonwealth has two rene
dies : tl) The parties may be indicted
for carrying on their business without
license, or % they may be treated as
debtors to the State to the amount Of
the largest penalty prescribed by law
for doing business without license and
an action of debt be instituted against
them to recover that amount. Acts
1915, pages 24S and 249.
Should criminal proceedings be inSti-
tuted against one of these people the
plea would be that he had made ten
der of the amount due for the license
in coupons cut from bonds OF the Com
monN ealth, which coupons were re-
ceivable for taxes. &c, due the State,
&C., or else the plea would be simply
"not guilty"
Under either plea, az seems, the de-
PENDANT, pursuant TO an act passed last
winter, Up. SO, Acts Of 1885, woald
have to prove the commences and
validity Of the coupons rendered by
him, and would be precluded from
making such proof by expert testimony
alone. Should it be deemed better to
adopt the action Of debt for the penalty
than to proceed criminally against these
people-and perhaps the civil pro-
ceedings would be best-the act
of lS74-'75 above referred to
makes ample provision to insure
the satisfaction Of a judgment;
for under that act an attachment may
be issued against the defendant without
the affidavit or bond required in other
cases, and he may be compelled to give
bond to satisfy the judgment of the
court. The defendant in the civil pro-
ceeding would, Of course, if the act Of
1880 page so is valid and cOnstitu-
tional, be compelled to prove the genu-
ineness of his coupons by other teSti-
mony than that of experts. The act
last referred to, it will be observed, is
not an act directed specially against
coupons; but it simply makes a change
in the rules Of evidence applicable to
the proof Of a certain class of instru-
ments chose not authenticated by the
sign-manual of any PERSONA change
which the vast multiplication Of that
class of instruments and the facility of
forging them seemed to render entirely
expedient and proper.
1t is not perceived. therefore, how
any valid objection can be made to the
act, for it is generally agreed that there
is no constitutional limitation upon
legislative changes in the rules Of evil
dence.
Whenever the tax is such a one as
may be levied for directly without first
getting judgment against the party from
whom the tax is due it will probably
be best to levy.
If the party claim the levy to be il
legal, by reason of his previous tender
Of coupons, he may sue the officer in
damages, or on the same ground he may
eDjoin the levy. In either case--of the
damage suit or the injunction-the pro-
ceeding, as expressly decided by the
United States Supreme Court, is against
the individual, not the State and in
either case the act in question would
require the plaintiff to prove his cou-
pons by direct testimony.
Should the plaintiff prevail in his suit
against the officer, ample provision has
been made by the act establishing an
" indemnifying board " for the officers
indemnity and protection.
1t would seem best, if possible, to
get decision Of our own Court Of APP
peals on the eridence act before it be-
comes the subject of adjudication in the
Federal courts. and steps should surely
be taken for that purpose as soon as
possible.
The attention of Commonwealth
attorneys should be called to these
evasions Of the license laws, and to the
importance Of immediate action.
w. ID. D.
CHARLOTTESVILLE, March Is, SO.