The Daily times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1886-1889, 1886-12-01
Coupon Construction.
OPINION FROM THE ATTORNEY-GEN.
ERAL AS GIVEN AUDITOR MAYRE.


An Important Paper on the Situation.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.,
ATTORNEY-GENERAL's OFFICE,
RICHMOND, November, a. 1885,
Hon. Morton Marye, Auditor Of Public Ac-
counts
Sir.-I have received communications from
G.. w. Moorehead, treasurer of Pulaski; yohn
w. Richardson, treasurer of Smyth, ana from
several other county treasurers, informing me
that coupons had been rendered ia pay ~ VI
State taxes, and asking what they should do IN
regard TO such tender. These letters mere
with refer TO you as the head OF the revenue
department of the State.
The act Of the General Assembly entltieu
IAN act to prevent frauds upon the treasury
and the holders of her securities In the cOllec,
ton and disbursement Of revenues" approved
January IA, 1882, requires the ofhcer 10 receive
the coupons, "giving the party rendering re
ceipt. stating that he has received the same for
the purpose of Identification and veriflcatlon,
HE shall at the same time require sucn ta1-
payer TO pay his taxes in com, legal-tenuer
notes, or national bank bills, ana upon pay.
ment give him n receipt for the same. This is
the only way taxpayer can nave ms coupons
received and obtain his receipt under the act
recited. This act has been construed by tne
Supreme Court of Appeals OF Virginia ana tne
Supreme Court of the United States and pro
nounced constitutional and yald.-AntOni
vs. GreenhOw 107 United States 169. TO stop
here there certainly can be no question as 10
which has been pronounced constitutional by
the courts of highest resort, b0tn state ana
Federal. This statute only authorizes MN 10
give a receipt where the taxes are pald IN
money and he cannot lawfully deliver the tax
payer receipted tax bill until the money is
paid But in the more recent case OF POlndex-
ter vs. GreenhOw, ia United states, page E'O
the Supreme Court of the United States mas
decided that where taxpayer tenders gen
nine coupons and the officer refuses To re
ceive them and levies upon the taxpayer
property he is a tresspasser, ansWeraDle III
damages. And in the case OF barry vs. Ed
monds, decided at the last term OF the supreme
Court of the United States, the JURISDICTION OF
the Federal courts in actions to recover dam
ages was affirmed although the value OF the
property taken was alleged 10 be $40. inns
decision has been followed by the circuit
Courts of the United States i'm Virginia, and
number OF judgments rendered against treas
urers upon verdcts for less than 500.
The practical application of the principles
decided show the absurdlty or attempting 10
reconcile the decisions in the two cases. Again,
i'm the case Of GrcenhOw VS.. VashOn, decided
by the Supreme Court of Appeals OF virginia,
the court held that the act requiring all taxes
assessed on property, real or personal, ana dec-
icated TO the maintenance of the public schools,
TO be paid and collected only in lawful money
of the United States, was constitutional ana
valid. This decision stands unreversed ana
must govern the officers Of the state In exc
cutting the law. The officer cannot lawfully
receive the coupons for taxes assessed
and dedicated to the maintenance Of the
public schools, and cannot receive them for
other taxes i'm any other way than that pro
vided by the act Of January II, 1882. above re
cited, and should be so advised. But i'm view
of certain recovery of the taxes paid, and
costs by suit i'm the Circuit Court of the United
States, under the decisions Of the supreme
Court of the United States in PoindeXter vs..
GreenhOw and Barry VS.. Edmunds, ] do not
think it wise 10 direct the officers to levy
after the tender of genuine coupons.
Yours respectfully,
X. \. AYERS,
Attorney General.