Bryan v. Virginia

The head-note for these eases will be found on page 663, ante.

Me. Justice 'Bradley continued, stating the case made in these three causes as follows: With regard to three of these cases, Bryan v. The State of Virginia, Cooper v. The State of Virginia, and McGahey v. The State of Virginia, we have very little hesitation or difficulty in • coming to a conclusion. They are suits brought by the Commonwealth of Yirginia against the persons severally named, under the act of May 12, 1887, for' the recovery of taxes' due from them respectively. The proceedings in the last-named' case may.be described as a sample of them all. The case was institutéd in the Circuit Court of Alexandria, Yirginia, in the name of the Commonwealth, by. the following notice: “ To John McGahey: “ Take notice that on the 28d day of March, 1888, in accordance with the statutes in such cases made and provided, I shall move the Circuit Court of Alexandria City for a judgment against you in favor of the Commonwealth of Virginia for the sum of $12.60, with interest on $6.4Qj part thereof, from the 15th day of December, 1886, till paid, and on $6.20, the residue, from December .15, 1'887, till paid, that being the sum due by you to the said Commonwealth of Virginia for taxes, together with the penalty thereon, in payment of which papers or instruments purporting to be coupons detached from bonds of the State of Virginia -have been tendered and not accepted as payment, and which taxes have not been otherwise paid due on certain real and personal property in the city of Alexandria, the said taxes being the same, assessed according to law by the Commonwealth, of Virginia for the years 1886 and 1887, upon th.e property aforesaid. • “ Leonard Maebury. “ For the Commonwealth of Vi/rginiaP To this notice the defendant filed the following plea: “For a plea in this behalf the defendant says that the plaintiff ought not to maintain its action, because he says that heretofore, viz'., on the 1st day of December, 1886, and on the 1st day of December, 1887, when the taxes sued for became respectively due and payable, and prior to the commencement of this action in said city, he was willing and, ready to pay and then, and there tendered and offered to pay to the plaintiff tax-receivable- coupons, then due and payable, cut from bonds'issued by the plaintiff under the act of the General Assembly of Virginia, approved March 30th, 1871, entitled ‘An act to provide for the funding and payment of the public debt,’ together with lawful money of the United States, as follows, viz.: For the said tax of $6.40, one (1) coupon, No. 23,-cut from bond No. 5684, due January 1, 1883, for $3; one (1) coupon, No. 23, cut from bond No. 4213, due January 1, 1883, for $3; and forty cents (40c.) lawful money of the United States. “And for the said tax of $6:20, one (1) coupon, No. 29, cut from bond No. 1048, due January 1, 1886, for $3; one (1) coupon, hfo. 28, cut from bond No. 2899, for $3, due July.l,-1885; and twenty, cents (20c.) lawful money of the United States; to receive which the plaintiff then and there refused: “Aud the defendant further says that always from the times when the said taxes' became respectively due and- payable, hitherto he has been ready and willing to pay- and is still here ready and willing to pay to the plaintiff the said tax-receivable coupons and lawful money, and he now brings into court here said coupons and lawful money, ready to be paid to the plaintiff if it will accept the saíne; and this he is.ready to. verify; whereupon he prays judgment, etc.” • Upon the issue thus joined a.trial by jury was had and a verdict given for the Commonwealth for $13.96, and judgment entered thereon with costs. A bill of exceptions was. taken at the trial, whitíü shows that the defendant first moved to quash the notice of motion and dismiss the cause on the ground that the act of May 12, 1887, entitled “ An act to provide for the recovery by. motions - of taxes and certain debts due the Commonwealth,” etc., is repugnant to section 10, article .1 of the Constitution of the United States; which motion was overruled.. The defendant, then, to maintain the issue on-his party-proved that when said taxes became respectively due and pay■able he tendered in payment thereof .to'the proper collecting officer the coupons and lawful money described in and filed, with his plea, which coupons on their- face purported to have-been originally attached'to bonds issued by the State of Virginia under the act of March 30, 1871, being.then respectively due and payable, and having each upon its face the following-language : “ Receivable at and after maturity in payment for all taxes, debts and demands due the State,” which said coupons, and money the said officer refused to receive. The said coupons were then offered in evidence, and are in the form following, printed wholly from an engraved plate: “ Receivable at and after maturity for all taxes, debts and demands due the State. The Commonwealth of ' Virginia will pay the-bearer three dollars, interest due 1st January, 1883, on bond No. 4213. George Rye, Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Virginia.” The other coupons offered were of similar form, in all respects. The defendant further proved that he .never owned the bonds from which the coupons were cut, and knew nothing whatever in respect to their ownership; that the coupons when purchased by him were already detached from the bonds; and that he bought them in open market as genuine coupons, and without any reason to doubt their' genuineness. He further proved that prior to September 1, 1879, the State had issued bonds of the kind and in the form authorized by said act to the amount of many millions of dollars, the coupons thereon being wholly printed from engraved plates and not signed manually. He further offered to prove the denominations and numbers of the bonds issued under the act' of March 30, 1871, and the act of March 28, 1879. He offered and read in evidence to the jury senate document XV, senate journal 1881-82, which contained a report of H. H. Dixon, second auditor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, directed to the president of the senate, in answer to certain questions which had been proposed to him by the senate, for its information, in which report, amongst other things, the said second auditor stated: “ I have the honor to report that I have no knowledge of any spurious or forged bonds or coupons issued or purporting- to have been issued under either of the said acts. As to any bonds or coupons that may have been stolen I have heard of none issued under the act of March 28, 1879; nor have I any knowledge of any issued under the act of March 30, 1871, except such information as may be contained in the report made to the legislature March 30, 1871, by the joint committee to investigate the sinking fund, in which a deficiency of $15,939.89 of bonds and of $1325.15 of interest is stated.” Another report of said auditor was offered in evidence by the defendant, in which he stated as follows: “ I have the honor to report that no counterfeit or forged obligations, bonds, coupons, or certificates of the State of Virginia have in any way come to my knowledge.” The defendant then offered to prove by the testimony of an expert witness -that the coupons issued were genuine coupons, but the court refused to receive such testimony or to allow it to go to the jury because of the act of the General Assembly approved January 21, 1886; to which ruling the defendant excepted on the ground that said act was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. The defendant then rested, and thereupon the Commonwealth demanded of the defendant the production of the bond from which the coupons tendered purported to have been cut, with proof that said coupons were actually cut therefrom. The defendant moved the court to overrule and disallow such demand, on the ground that the act of assembly approved January 26, 1886, under which the demand was made, was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and void. But the court overruled said motion and sustained the demand, to which\ the defendant excepted. The evidence being closed, the defendant prayed the court to instruct the jury- that the production of the bonds from which the coupons in issue were cut, together with proof that the coupons were cut therefrom^ was not necessary to establish the genuineness of the coupons, and that the act requiring this to be done is contrary .to the Constitution of the United States. But the court refused this instruction, and instructed the jury that such production of bonds and proof, when demanded, was necessary to establish .the genuinenéss of the coupons, to which ruling the defendant excepted. The defendant further prayed the court to instruct the jury that if the jury believe from the evidence that the State of Virginia issued her bonds with tax-receivable interest coupons thereto attached, which coupons were made payable to bearer, and were printed from engraved plates and not signed manually by any officer of the State, and if they further believe that the defendant purchased the coupons filed .with his plea of tender in open market, in good faith, as genuine coupons of said State, then the burden is upon the State to prove said coupons spurious, and that the act of March 12, 1887, placing upon the defendant the burden of proving them genuine is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. This instruction was also refused by the court and the defendant excepted. The judgment in the case was removed by writ of error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State'of -Virginia, and was affirmed. The present writ of error brings this judgment before us for consideration.