Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-11-06
Those Coupons.

10 SNt EUUW cf Uft DtcpotCts
Thanks for your courteous reply TO ou
note Of inquiry. Your statements, howey
er, still leave fnc matter unsettled.
1. Let us pu u in this way ~ we olel
70 Mr., Tinsiey coupons for our taxes-hf
rrf,Ises. other properly belonging 10 US Il
levied upon and sold for those taxes; the
money ~ fakrn, and we have Mr.. TiDsley's
receipt Tor the same. what ground OF claim
can tbe State have for the coupons which
we rendered and which were refusedy
9. the stats officer did not get the
money for those taxes who did!
3. If the State has never been paid Tor
those taxes, who 4 responsible! IL seems
to us that We would (undcr such circum-
stipces) hsve psid our tax's, and would
have the best evidence TO that fact.
4. We have no idea OF making such an
attempt, but We are asking for Information.
We cannot perceive thus far where the
claim Of the State comes In after the taxes
have been collected and receipted for by
the propr officer.
&. Your distinction between the +" States
officer " and "the tre.passing officer "puz-
giles us.
6. Your editorial saws the States officers
"refused 10 receive coupons" Were not
those the officers who were suedl
Pray do not be impatient with us. We
repeat that we ask in good faith, not for
love OF controversy. READERS.
1. We cannot use Mr.. TiSsLEY's name;
because be Is both the trespasser and The
States officer. lie appears in two cbarac-
tiers. We consider this attempt to draw a
line Of distinction between the officer and
the trespasser a fraud upon the Constitn-
tloD aud upon The State OF Virginia. IL is
rot we who draw that line. 1t Is the SUI
preme Court Of the United States. That
tribunal has decided that when anybody
pretending TO be an officer leyies upon pro-
perry for taxes after its owner has rendered
coupons for those taxes, he is not the States
officer at ell, but a trespasser. Clearly,
then, this tTespsasser can make no valid
levy and no yalid sale; and inasmuch as In
making the levy and sale he was not the
States officer. be thereby obtained no money
10 which the State was entitled and none for
which be could give receipt in her
name. The state has nothing to do with
the levy nor with the sale, and no more to
do with the money than II the money had
betn stolen. Let us suppose, however,
that you have receipt, and that the mo.
ney was paid into the State Treasury
Your receipt Is the receipt Of the tres
passer for money made by him by levy
made unlawfully. But even IL we concede
that the receipt was good when given, and
recognize the trespasser as the States
officer, the State must give him back this
money, since a jury has compelled him TO
refund il 10 the taxpayer. He has paid
back 10 the taxpayer all the money he had
made by his unlawful levy. and is entitled
to have bis receipt returned to him. The
State thereupon returns to him all the
money be had made by bis levy land
more). She has not received dollar
for taxes. The officer has not re-
ceived a dollar for taxes. The tax
PAYER has no, paid a dollar OF his taxes
either to the State or TO the trespasser. He
is not out OF pocket one dime. 1t is no an
swer to this TO say that he has receipt and
won't return Il 10 the officer; for that re-
ceipt was given for money which has been
recovered by the taxpayer by law. Now,
II does seem to Us to be clear That since he
stu owes his taxes (and OF course will mol
psy In money! the coupons he claims to
have rendered Tor other coupon9 must be-
long 70 the State.
9. The Supreme Court OF the United
10 hx fraa IN
by the states officer.
q. The taxpayer Is responsible. He ha
not paid his taxes, and therefore must still
owe for them.
a. They have no. been receipted for by
the "proper officer" but by trespasser
and even a trespasser's receipt ought Il
have been returned TO him as soon as he re
turned las the jury made him do) all the
tax.mouey be had made by the levy sut
sale,
8. We repeat that IL Is not our distinc
ton, but distinction drawn by the su
preme Court Of the United States. Itwa
drawn IN order that that court might hav'
jurisdiction In the Virgins cases. A Stat
cannot be sued. Therefore this subter
fuge-this "jingle Of words" TO use th
expression Of the four dissenting Justices, =
was resorted to.
G. No. II was not the States officers VIII,
were sued. The men who were sued wer
trespassers. These trespassers pleaded tina
they were the States officers; but the court
said they were not.