The Daily times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1886-1889, 1886-12-08
"TgyIyG TO BE A RASCAL"

From the Bedford lndeXI
One of our Worthiest cOuntymen a lew
DAYS since made use to Us OF the aDoYeeX
preston. as descriptive OF his endeavorto
reconcile it with his ideas OF honesty 10
buy coupons to pay his State taxes. 1t
was q singular and striking instance OF
how il is possible to warp and peryert the
human Judgment The only lucid reason
me could rive for using such language IN
,bis connection. was that the press OF the
State. the party press, was almost a unit
I'm Geclaiming against the dishonesty OF
having a dollars worthOf debts with nifty
cents worth of coupons.
The argument is certainly a plausible
one. but nevertheless, it is s0phistry,
pure and simple. Take the bald prop
osition and discover it from its surround
inc circumstances, there can be no ques-
ton of is truth. But circumstances
alter cases" as viii be quite obvious to
our readers in the present case, II they
will examine the circumstances.
The deprecated coupon Is the States
OBLIGATION. reduced from its face value
bvtbe States action. Does anybody doubt
the morality or propriety OF paying q
creditor with his own paper, and would
he consider himself bound in any sense
TO allow that creditor the full benefit
of the discount at which he may
have purchased that papery Let MS look
a little closer into this matter. II IS said
that at is an i'll rule hat don't work
both WAYS" Suppose the coupons, IN
stead Of selling at fifty odd cents, com
manded a premium Of fifty cents does
anyone imagine the State would accept
them at any more than their face value
in payment Of dues TO it? Or, IN the
Illustration above given, would the credi-
tor make anyone an allowance above the
face value of his paper, in consideration
Of the latter having paid a premium for
il? Certainly not Then what becomes
of the moral question, as to the propriety
of having the States dues in its own OBJ
LEGATIONS at their face value, irrespective
of their cost to the States debtor?
But we will 90 a step farther and show
that. if there is any question of rascality
involved in this manner of paying State
taxes. the man who pays them in money
is obnoxious to the charge rather than he
who pays in coupons. For the taXpay-
ers. who constitute the State, agreed with
the States creditors, by act of Assembly,
that the State should receive the coupons
i'm payment of taxes due ii. This agree
ment holds good as to all outstanding tax
receivable coupons, no matter who holds
them. and no matter what law has been
passed. The rule that mo State shall pass
laws impairing the obligations of con-
tracts" is equally sound in law and morals
Now, if the taxpayer uses only money to
pay his State taxes isn't he aiding in yio-
iating the obligation of contract and
committing both a legal and a moral
wrong? Besides, when he pays only
money what becomes Of the debt repre-
scented by the coupon bonds? Isn'titpost-
poned? And. if there is no further pro-
vision to meet it, isn't it practically repu-
dated? The law would so consider 1t
and, i'm the case of persons, would enter
tain suit, give judgment, and issue exc
cutiOn for the amount of the debt
against the property Of the debtor
TO postpone or repudiate the coupons
then is simply to avail ourselves of the
fact that State cannot be sued to do its
creditors a vile wrong. \ man who ties
up his property so that his creditors can
not get at it by process of law, and lives
on enjoying it himself is justly scorned
and condemned of honest men? Are the
cases not precisely similar?
The payment Of taxes in coupons is
then the part of an honest man, for it is
the payment of an honest debt; and the
debt thereby postponed, portion of the
State taxes is the debt due ourselves foI
education, self government, etc. In the
same manneran honest debtor pays what
he owes as far as he can, not resery
ing funds to keep his house in order
educate his children, provide for his
sick, give away in charity, ETC. Such q
man does not dictate terms to his
creditors, but throws himself on theil
mercy and accepts such terms as they are
willing to grant him.
Why should the case with State be
different?