Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1886-11-27
State Debt.

In the GAzETTE's issue of the 1Oih inst.
there appears letter from Mr.. Samuel D.
Davies, ofRichmond Virginia, entitled "The
Ownership of the Coupons" Mr.. Davies
treats of the subject cfownersbp under sew
eral heads.
| l. AS between tho officer and the Slate.
| 2. AS between the officer and The tarpqver
3. AS between the Taxpayer and the State
and arrives at the conclusion that the lisbil-
lty ID transferred from the taxpayer to the
olncer, and that the taxpayer is forever dis.
charged of his debt, to both officer and
State.
These conclusions bear on their face q re-.
markable anomaly. The taxpayer owes a
debt He pays nothing, he gives nothing.
be loses nothing, and yet satisfies his debt
IN toto. By the mere tender of his COUPONS.
which he keeps, nothing passes from him.
BY the levy and sale of his property he
loses nothing, because he RECEIVERS dam.
ages Tor the seizure and sale. 1t may be true
that the taxpayer in his tender, tenders to
an officer, and IN his suit, sues mere tres.
passer. But it is equally true, that the tax.
payer still keeps his coupons, and is not one
cent out of pocket. Now let Us see if these
astounding conclusions arc true. What are
the facts? A owes the State $1OO-he ten
ders the treasurer 500 in coupons. The
treasurer takes the coupons, makes mem
orandum, by which he can identify them,
and hands them back to A. Now, what is
the legal result Of his transaction, standing
alone, unconnected with and independent
OF any subsequent action? Now l do
not here consider what might be the
result, if the facts were different.
A might have rendered his 500 of coupons.
| inbt hou l;ol
hars he would, in effect: My Dear Sir-I
cannot receive coupons-I am State off
Ger; am under State authority; I au sub.
ject to State mandate. lily bondsmen are
responsible if refuse OR fail to obey the i'm
peralive orders Of the power Immediately
above me. | shall render unto Cesar the
things that are Caesars. II disobey U. S.
laws IN obeyng State laws, made for nv
action and guidance, am grieved that the
obeyence of the one is the breach of the
other If evil results, the power above me
must stand between ne and harm. A might
have answered: See you to that. All this
concerns aot me. I owe the State 800
| taxes You are the States officer to receive
taxes. Here are coupons to the amount of
500. You say you will not receive them.
don't care whether you do or not. That's
your business, not mine. | here surrender
and hand them to you. You will not take
them? Then I lay them on your desk be-
fore your eyes You can take them, give
them to the State, or burn them up. Idout
care what you do with them. l have no
more interest in them, and no more connec
lion with them. This action might be very
embarrassing to the poor treasurer. Il
might put him in position like Mahomet's
coffin, suspended midway between heaven
and earth, or like the man between the
devil and the deep sea, or the unfortunate
agnostic to whom the preacher said:
| ''You can and you cant, You will and Won wont
You'll be dsmned fyou do and you'll be damned if
you DON'T
This action, however 20 unsatisfactory to
the treasurer, might DO safe for the tax
payer.
But such are not the facts. In the tender
of coupons, the actual occurrences are as
have stated viz: A. owes the State 500.
lie tenders $500 in coupons. The Treasurer
| takes the coupons, makes memorandum.
by which he can identify them, and hands
them back to A. What is the legal effect of
this A.? III is mere legal tender and can
have no other effect than tender between
Individuals. In teuder between individu.
ais, Inc debtor must always remain ready
with the money, to pay it whenever it is
afterwards demanded Of him. The debt is
never extinguished by tender; the debtor
gainsonly freedom, heIcetorth, from COSTS
anG interest So far as | know, no court
mas ever decided that there was any differ
ence as TO the efect Of Il tender when Stale
is the creditor, aud g. lot So decide, with
out trampling uude vG every principle of
law relating TO the subject. In Poindexter
VS.. Greenhow the Supreme Court Of the
United States decided that tender of cou.
pons was equivalent to payment Of tho tax,
as 10 subsequent steps to collect the tar as de-
hnQuent (Chatfin vs.. Taylor, JIG Sup. CT.
reports 51l, but did not, by any means,
decide that the tender was an actnsl pay.
ment for sll purposes the inference is ex.
actly the contrary
In all actions against tre6sGrcrs for dam.
ages for levy after tender of coupons, the
declarations aver that the plaintiff was
always ready and willing to deliver to the
treasurer The said coupons in payment of his
taxes" BARRY vs.. Edmunds JIG Sup. Ct.
reports, p. $3.50, and without such averment,
the declaration would be fatally defective.
AT this stage Of the case to whom do the
coupons baloug? Undoubtedly they belong
10 the State, by the very act Of the taxpay.
or, when he delivers his coupons to the
treasurer in payment ofhs Ia xes, for by that
A~
forth the States property. If he does not
so admit, then he has made 10 tender. For
the most essential characteristic of GOOD
tender is that the debtor tenders a sum in
payment OF debt and will hold the sum
ready TOR the creditor whenever he demands
it. When the taxpayer takes back the cou
pons, he holds them merely as the property
OF the State, and he is the mere custodian of
that property for the State. 1t is absurd to
say that there Is no longer any privity be-
tween him and the Stote, and that the State
cannot demand them from him at auy time it
chooses: The assertion that the taxpayer
can hold these coupons against the subse.
quent demand Of the State therefor, cuts at
the very roots and foundation of tender and
makes his previous acts tantamount TO no
tender at ell. 1t may be that the United
States courts will hold that the State can
rot demand and recover rendered coupons,
but II they do, from that moment thew will
have cast aside every principle of tender.
and cast the whole subject into mszss and