The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1886-10-21
The Coupon Cases.

In the United States Court to-day
Judges Hughes and Bond presiding, tn,
trial of the case of A. M. Willis agains
W. G. Miller. treasurer of Rappahanocl
county, and others, was resumed.
During the argument on motions for in
struction Hon. j Randolph Tucker raised
the following points
1st. That the Constitution made the
school fund atrnst fund, and that no con.
| tract subsequent to the Constitution could
| divert it. The attempt by making cou-
| pons receivable for school taxes was a
diversion OF the school fund in practical
effect by the trustee to the payment of his
own debt.
I'd. That though rights might have been
acquired under his contract, yet they
must be set aside, not as impairing the OBJ
legation of a valid contract, but because
the contract, if the original power to
make it was wanting, it was void, ultra
a'ires. This was the case here.
Sd. That the previous decision of the
Virginia Supreme Court and that in
the United States Court were not in con
! 6ict with this case. because the facts were
different. Here for the first time the
Legislature had followed out the constitu-
tIonal requirement and segregated the
| school tax so as to make it distinguishabIe
| from the others. It exercised the tax
| power for schools as distinct and trust
power from all other taxation.
| TO he just before you are generous" is
undoubted right but to be just by illegal
means and in violation of the Constitution
is equally wrong.
Judge Bond said that since the act of
1884, which segregated the taxes levied by
law and collected by it's treasurers. the
right to tender coupons In payment of
State school tax was no longer allo wable.
BY the act of 1871 the coupons rendered
In this case by plaintiff in payment of his
State taxes were made receivable for all
public taxes and dues. The Supreme
Court of the United States has decided
that this was contract between the State
and the coupon holder. which no subse-
quent legislation could impair, and we
cannot now see why the fact that the Leg
islature has altered the method of collect
ing the school tax or the method of its dis
tribution, or the fact that it has segregated
it from the gross tax collected can alter it's
contract to receive its own evidence of
debt in payment of that tax. It is pub
lie due. The tender of coupon is the
tender of a receipt of so much money al
ready in the State treasury. If the money
represented by the coupon is not in the
treasury it is as much the duty of the
State to have it there as it is to support
the public schools. The one is as much
sacred trust as the other So far as it may
be maintained that the act of 1884 forbids
the receipt of tax receivable coupons for
any State tax to that extent it is in viola
ton of the const tuition of the United
States. as has been decided again and again
by the Supreme Court, and no device of
diversion or segregation or distribution of
any particular State tax will avoid this
fatal defect.
l find in looking oyer the dockt of this
court some forty other cases similar to this
in which levies have been made upon the
property Of citizens of this State after they
had rendered the State coupons in payment
of their taxes. This action has been con-
ceded by the officers if the State who have
represented her in previous cases of this
character to be a treSpaSs. It seems to me,
therefore, under such circumstances the
act complained of being conceded by the
defence to be illegal. to be he duty of the
Court and jury to take cognisance of this
continued disregard of the law and to in
flict such preventive damages upon the de-
PENDANTS as shall deter them from further
acts of like chara cter.
The Court then gave similar instructions
to the jury as in the Dulany case with the
additional instruction
And the jury are instructed that the
meaning of the word malice, in law, is not
personal hate or i'll will of one person To-
wards onother. But it refers to the state
of mind which is reckless of law and of the
legal rights of the citizen in person IS con-
duct towards that citizen and the objec
OF the law in perm lifting he jury to give
exemplary damages or smart money, in CT
sas like this is not only to Indemnify the
plaintiffs fsr the loss sustained, but to pre-
vent Similar actions upon the part OF thes,.
and other defendants in the future. y
The argument was opened by Mr.. Geo.
Bryan, of counsel for plaintiff, who was
followed by Acknowledgements Ayres and
Mr.. Tucker, Mr.. W. L. Royal losing.
The jury returned a verdict for the plain
tiff, assessing the damage at $3.50. Coun-
sci for the plaintiff moved to set aside the
verdict. The motion was overruled.
The damages asked by the plaintiff were
$50, O0O.-Ric7an,oaad State, Oct. 10.