The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1873-07-12
Lega, Remedies against ) seasses.. J!

Legal EemeQleS against y StAte.s:Es
The New York Fluaacter copies one Of
our articles on the subject Of the right of the
Federal courts to compel By nsaadast'h a4,. .
State ofieer, to levy taxes, and in in she same
issue enters into a long argument TO sho"
that the true doctrine is As Stated by sar.
RsygspY JoHSsos. Perhaps 1T rs. But
when we recollect that the, Federal Consti.
tuition expressly forbids a citizen or subject
of any other State oripower from suing any
one Of the United States wernay be excused
for our failure to understand how such ga
provision can be nullifed In eonstitntiFonaAl
manner. The Fsaaacier seems 70 nave no
trouble on this score. 1t declares In plain
words that "the doctrine that there Is no
"renedy against misdeeds Of . State, eren y
ga constitutional one, is plainly injurious
"and provocative of wrong courses" From
which remark we infer that the Fnancier
would not allow even constitutional pro-
vision to hinder It from doing what it might
suppose to be Justice But then, If the
courts were allowed this, sort of latitude,
there would be no use for law The Judges
would make. the law confotm to their ideas
Of justice, or they might practice injustice
yet plead their conscientious opinions as an
excuse for all sorts of oppression and wrong
doing. We prefer to abide by the law.
The Enancier makes the following state
ment Of Chief-Jlstice MARsBALL's decision,
under which Mr.. JOHNSON proposes, to use
the Federal courts as collectors OF interest
due upon State bonds by the State of North
Carolina: - - 80
Chief-Justice Marshall made distinction, under
certsin circumstances, between arState and OIL
GERS; not that some OF the press now mistakenly
saw IS only necessary TO name all INDIVIDUAL ns de-
fendant in suit wheH State Is intended In order to
cv:pic the eleventh amendment, but that there Is
real distinction II the State Is nae a,h ON t ~ s
cuss Tor the constitutional amendment denies 1urs.
clon; If an individual Is naned the court dn nnss
whether the state is really the party In interest
Furthermore cases may arise where, nithongn me
aranst the unjust action or non-action of State Off
GERS For instance, suppose State boundary is
contested anda State officer leyies taxes upon Gu
zen who claims that he Is 3 resident OF the other
state the State has an interest In the act OF us oI
GERS yet there must be II remedy for the aggrieSed
have Jurisdiction IN Suit brough, for relief against
that officer. ~ 49, so. ss@:7.' ~
How would this doctrine apply in North
Carolina? Let US suppose that Judge BoNn
has issued the mdnddmps nisi, and that the
proper officer tof, the State. appears before the
Judge and shows that the law'wbich the
Judge proposes to compel him to carry out
has been repealed. The pretence Is that the
repeal was unconstitutional, and that the law
is still in force. But evidently, even If the
Judge should find this to be the case, he
would at the same time find that the State
was the real party to the suit, whether q
rarty to the record or not /; and So he would
lind that he had no jurisdiction. Gould Judge
BOND hear arguments to prove that one act
of the North Carolina Legislature was con,
stitutional, and another demonstrations,
and still shut his eyes to the fact that North
Carolina was the real party in interest! 1t
the officer levy the taxes, it must be in ODE
dence to the State; and if he refuse to levy
them, it must be in obedience to the State.
How. then. could Federal judge order him
to proceed to levy taxes to pay debts due by
the State, land still profess to believe that the
State was not party to the suit? We do
not believe it can be done. We shall hold,
until the event proves the contrary, that the
Supreme Court of the United States will re-
fuse to evade the Constitution in manner
that would amount to notification. ~.