Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-11-24
WEDNESDAY. NOVEMBER "a, 1886.
Those Decisions.

we prO'uistu ftsttIuas W SUI" 'h"' wv
SUPREME Court OF the United States had
rendered In 1ss2 decision that was iucon-
s;stent with what Judge BOND and the
bopdbolders have taken the later decisions
in the Virginia coupon cases TO be. Their
contention Il that the first decision Is con-
sistent with the later decisions because In
the one opinion the court was considering
the case Of man who desired to force coa-
ponS upon the treasury. and in the other
opinions the court was considering the cases
OF men who had rendered coupons and
stood upon their tender. The court itself
tried TO escape the charge OF inconsist-
ency by setting up this plea. But the
facts are against il. Nobody could ever
be required to force coupons upon the
treasurer. 1t was his duty at once to ac-
cept them. The law provides that he
"shaU receive the same" for verifcation.
But IL also provides that the taxes shall be
paid In money in advance, and the Supreme
Court decided that this law was valid en-
actment, and the court gave excellent rea-
sons Why it was right and proper to compel
taxpayers to pay their taxes in money. In
Antoni as. Greenho,o, decided October
term, 1882, the supreme Court OF the
United States said:
~. As TO the payment OF taxes In adj
vance: In tins connection IL must be
borne In mind that the legislation the va
lidity Of which Is involved, relates alone to
the collection Of taxes levied under the au-
tbority Of the State for the purposes OF rev.
enue. Promptness in the payment OF take.
by the citizen is as important as prompt
ness by the state in the discharge OF it,
own obligations. In fact, ordinarily the
last cannot be done without the FIRST.
Hence, under the revenue system OF the
United States the collection OF the revenue
under and IN the manner prescribed by
law cannot be restrained by judicial pro.
ceedings. The only remedy for an illegal
exaction Is payment under protest and suit
10 recover back the meney paid. As it is
necessary the Government should be able
10 calculate with certainty on its revenues,
1T IL BETTER that the individual should
be REQUIRED TO pay what is demanded
under the forms Of law, and sue to recover
back what he PAYS, than that the Govern
ment should be embarrassed in its opera
tons by q stay Of collection"
1t will be seen that the court referred to
United States law as proof that the Vir-
ginia law was right, and contended that 1t
was right lin both cases OF course) to
REQUIRE the taxpayer to pay what was
demanded under The forms Of law, even
though In the Virginia case the Taxpayer
had to sue to recover back what he paid.
What could be palmer than that language!
But we quote again;
"Looking at the case, therefore. a.
one affecting the collection Of public revc-
nue., we CANNOT SEE THAT THE RE-
OUIREMENT Of the Gdrdace Of the td1eS
as n condition TO the employ ment OF the
remedy Is such an impairment Of The con.
tract as makes the requirement inUebd."
The "rsquirement," notice, not the op.
tion OF standing upon tender. The law
requires money to be paid-not coupons to
be rendered, unless rendered for vertical
tion-and the court says that law is cOnstl-
tutional-does not impair any contract.
viii 1t be said that the court in this
case limited at the distinction attempted to
be drawn in the other cases? We are not
discussing that point, but whether or not
the later decisions are consistent with the
first one.
In 1884, in Allen ct ais. Us. Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad Company, the same
court says:
at is admitted by the parties in the
record that the coupons rendered are gem
ujne, though not verified as required by the
act OF January Ii, 1882"
Suppose that had been denied instead OF
admitted: What would the court have
said! And what sense or reason Is there
In the remark II person may pay istaxes
in coupons not admitted to be genuine!
Again: In Poindexter Us. Greenho,o the
court said Qn 1884:
"The ceupon-holder whose tender Of
genuine coupons in payment OF taxes has
been refused stands upon the same footing
In this respect as II he had rendered gold
COIN"
"Whose tender Of genuine coupons "
not any sort OF coupons. But we need not
prosecute this discussion. The court ha'
certainly touched discordant strings.