The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1890-05-20
THE COUPON CASES
DECIDED BY THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT.

Review OF the Legislation and Litigation
Mr.. Justice Bradley's Orinion-The
state May Demand Money for Liquor
Licenses aud school Taxs.
WASHINGTON, y. c.. May l9.-ispecial.
The Supreme Court Of the United states to-
day decided the Virginia coupon eases,
which il has had under consideration for
several months. To understand correctly
lust what the decisions are, bricf retro
spect is necessary. In 1885 the Supreme
Court of She Uuited States decided that n
tender Of the states coupons for taxes due
her paid the tax so far as TO constitute her
officers trespassers. liable for damages if
they molcsted the taxpayers further after
the tender. At or about the same time IL
decided that these suits for damages might
be brought i'm the United states Circuit
Court without regard 10 the citizenship OF
the parties or the amount Of tax claimed.
Very soon taxpayers began TO tender cou-
.pons quite extensively, refusing 10 pay with
ANYTHING else. The treasurcrs levied on
their property and sold IL; the taxpayers
reTIied with actions fOf damages in the
United States Court, and in every case
without exception, adequate damages
were awarded them. The business con-
tinued TO grow until by the spring
Of 1857. more than three thousand
Taxpayers were standing on their tender q
coupons, s,compreheuding every quarter OF the
StaIe. The States officers had become para
lived with fear from The damages awarded
in the United states Court, and leNying Tor
taxes after tender Ci coupons had practi-
T. o.. ....ff 4 fl..... l.-
came evident that some new measures must
be resoited 10 for excluding the coupons
from the Treasury, or IN "A short time
a very large part Of the taxes would
come % be paid i'm coupons. Accordingly
Governor lee called the Legislature to-
gethcr and sent message in which the
situation was fully explained and he re-
commended the passage Of the act Of May
18th. 1857, commonly known rs the "Coupon
Crusher," which was one OF the acts be-
fore the court to-day. This act provided
that where the taX-pavers stood on tender
of coupons the attorney for the Common
wealth should bring suits against them f
the amount OF the tax in the Circuit Court
Of the state for the county in
which they resided. IL the taxpayers plead
cd the tender Of their coupons. they were re-
Quircd 10 prove the coupons rendered to be
genuine. NJ they failed In this, Judgment
was 20 90 against them for the amount OF
the tax, with costs added-these costs en-
bracing a fee Of ten dollars Ia each case for
the Commonwealth attorney, The whole
purpose of this act was 10 transfer any liti-
cation from the United states Court to the
courts of the state. The question naturally
arises how this could be Of any practical
benefit 90 the state. and herein lies the
merit or demcrit OF the matter, accord
ingly as one views il. The bonds are
ain 0st all held outside the State Of Virgin
ia. the coupons are cut of by the owners OF
the bonds and sent 10 Virginia to be sold to
her taxpayers, and thus all connection be
tween the owner Of the coupon and the
owner Of the bond is severed and euded.
There was at that time a statute in eXis-
tcnce. which provides that where the gen
uinencss Of coupon was called in question,
the testimony Of expert witnesses should
not ~ res0ricd to, To prove IL genuine, tai-
though being engraved paper with no man.
ual signature attached. this was the only
testimony by wlicn its gcnuineness could
be proved.
Another statute then in existence provided
that upon such a trial the states officer
might demand the production of the bond
from which the coupon came. and II It was
mol produced. judgment should 20 against
ihe TAXPAYER, Notwithstanding bis tender ci
coupons. II was believed that the judges
Of the State courts would uphold the valid
ity of these O,acts, and a. they eliectut ally
shut the taxpayer on from all possibility
Of proving his coupons "a. be- genuine. they.
of course. became at once of no value a.
tenders for taxes. Public expectation was
not disappointed respecting what the STATE
Judges would do. The supreme Court OF
Appeals (Judcc Lewis dissenting imnedi-
ately decided that the act forbidding expert
49, rftsfts fla.t ...IA
ton of the bond were valid Legislative acts,
thus tying the hand. Of the circuit judges
and compelling them 10 give eject To those
acts without regard 20 what their own .opin-
ions of them might be.
The coupon crusher' provided further
that when judgment went against the tax
PAYERS execution should issue against them
for the principal and the costs. If coupons
were rendered in payment OF these eNecu-
tiOns, other suits were 90 he brought against
them on these judgments. Other judgment,
were to he entered up with second set oi
costs added. and if coupons were rendered
in pavement of these second Judgments,
third judgments were 10 DE entered with
third set of COSTS added aud 80 on ad iniini.
tum.
. As aids and accessories 10 these acts
quite "A "chcyauX de- frisc' Of acts were
enacted. one provided that no person
should sell coupons 20 the states taxpayers
without paying special license tax oi
1000 for each county in which he did busi-
ness, and sure ndcr twenty per cent. oi The
face value Ofthe coupons sold To the >tatetun-
iii recently the market value Of the coupons
was seventeen cents on the dollar. IN
other act forbade the states officers 10
pav the coupons as interest promises
and another forbade the collectors 10 re-
ceiye them in payment OF taxes. 1t being
fhus made Impossible 90 utilize the coupons
except by litigation. still another act pro-
yided that if that litigation was not resort
ed to within one year from the time tDe
coupon beca me due, the coupon should be
forever barred.
The supreme Court of the United states
today decided
1. That the act Of Assembly forbiddlng
the use Of expert testimony is repugnant 10
the Constitution Of the | nlted states anj
void.
,. That the act Of Assembly providing
that the bond from which the coupon was
cut might be called for is repugnant 10 The
Constitution and void.
3. That the act requiring a special license
tax from those who sell coupons Is void.
(. That the act which iOrbids payment OF
costs in coupons is void.
,. That the act providing that coupons
shall not be used unless they are presented
within one year from the time they become
due is void.
&, Two of the cases. Cooper vs.. the state
and BRYAN vs.. The state, were appeals
from rulings made by Judge Wexford, IN
which hc declined 10 place his judgments
upon the validity of the states legislation,
but placed them upon the principles OF gen
eral commercial law. II was strenuously
argued that this placed it beyond tho power
of the Court 10 review and reverse those
rulings. But the Court examined into his
rulings and reversed them.
I. ON the States side 1t held that the sale
of liquor is entirely under the control OF the
state and that she can demand the pay
ment of liquor licenses in money and that
the school tax having been dedicated to the
schools by the states constitution before
the funding act was passed, she may re-
quire payment Of the school tax in money.
The opinion Of the court was delivered by
Mr.. Justice Bradley, and was the unani-
nous opinion of all the judges; no dissent
having been announced, so that 1t would
seem as if the differences Ofopinion amongst
the Judges on questions growing out Oi the
coupon legislation, are now 40 an end.
I'm closing his opinion he declared II 10 Dc