Knoxville Whig and chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1875-1882, 1875-06-02
THE NEW ISSUE.
The Suprcme Court Declares The state
not Liable for it's Payment.

i perempiory maudamus, requiring
ThOs. 70 Sneed, Tax Collector for
Davidson county, to receive from him
$3.50 in the notes of the Bank of Ten
nessee, issued after May 8, 1861, in
payment for his State taxes for the
year 1872.
The first question raised by the de-
murer Is as to the Jurisdiction of the
common law court To grant the writ of
mandamus. The petitioner bases his
application upon right secured to
him by section II of the charter of the
Bank of Tennessee, which provides
that the bills or notes of the said
corporation, originally made payable,
or which shall have become payable on
demand, in gold or silver coin, shall
he receivable at the Treasury of the
State, and by all Tax Collectors or
other public officers, in all payments
for taxes or other moneys due the
State" 1t is assumed that, by virtue
of this provision of the bank charter,
| the State entered into II contract with
every holder of any Of the bills or
notes of the bank. by which she bound
! herself that the same should he re-
ceived by her Tax Collectors in pay
ment of taxes due the State and that
! Vie llObtS SO lGIhtItu III tNiitth rs AK
Collector were issued by the bank.
1t is a legal as well as political axiom
| that no sovereign government can tie
sued in its own courts, except 10y its
own consent. tits true, however, that
in 1866 the State gave her consent that
suits might be brought against her as
against individuals, and this law re-
manned in force until 1865, when it was
I rpnpaInH and QinRa that tiffnA 10
has been enacted authorizing suits
against the State. 1t was during the
| period that the act of 1866 carried into
the code section 2S07 was i'm force, that
the notes of the bank now in cOntro-
versy were issued, and down to its re-
/ peal iR 1865, the holders of the notes so
| ISSUED had the right to enforce the
contract of guaranty contained in the
18th section of the bank charter
When the bank was chartered in
1898, the State undertook to receive the
issues of the bank, in payment of taxes
| assessed for the support of the State
government then in operation. That
State government, however, was sup
planted by the military and dc tdctO
government which was inaugurated
by the Legislature, and carried out by
a majority of the people in 1861, i'm the
acts by which it was attempted To sep
arate the State from the Federal Union,
and to declare its independence. These
acts were invalid and void, so far as
they were intended to affect, or to
change the relation of the State to the
Federal Union; but they were eff
fectual, for the time, i'm expelling the
authority of the United States gov
eminent, and in setting up a new local
government in place of the State gov-
eminent supplanted. The State re-
manned in the Union, and the Consti-
tuition of the United States continued
to exist and to operate within the
State during al' the time that the
usurped government was in existence.
The laws which had prevailed before
the attempted revolution, so far as
they We're not expressly repealed or
changed by the legislation of the dc
facto government, continued In force, as
between the citizens of the new gov
eminent, over their private contracts
continued under the protection of the
Federal Constitution.
In this way the charter OF the bank
continued in force, and its transac.
tons as banking corporation were
binding as between the bank and those
dealing with 1t. Its capacity to receive
deposits, and to issue a circulation, was
the same after as before the inaugural
tlon OF the new government. The
contracts made by the bank with the
citizens dealing with it, were protected
from impairment by the Federal Con-
stltutlon as etfectualiy during the eX.
istence of the usurped government as
before.
1t is well settled that all legal and
valid contracts between citizens of the
rebel States were so far under the pros
lection of the United States Constitu-
ton during the prevalence of the re-
bellion, that they could not be inn
paired by the legislatures of the re-
stored State governments. The ques-
ton presents itself, was the contract
OF guaranty between the State and the
holders of the new issue arising under
section II of the bank charter, under
the protection ofthe Federal Constitu-
ton during the rebellion ? If so, then
the act of the legislature repudiating
that issue was invalid. If not, then
that act was legitimate and effective.
1t has been repeatedly decided that
the government inaugurated in the
place OF the legitimate State govern
ment, was only operative as a military
or de JdctO civil government, but in
as far as it was opposed to the Federal
government or to the legitimate State
government, that it was an illegal
usurpation. To hold, therefore, that
the contract revised by the 18th section
of the bank charter, was valid obli-
CATION on the State, protected from im>
pairment by the Federal Constitution,
would be to hold that the Constitution
protected a contract which bound the
State to guarantee the payment of
taxes raised to sustain a government
in open hostility to the Federal Consti-
tuition and the Federal Union.
1t follows, necessarily, that the
usurping government did not and
could not commit the State to a COM
tract, which should continue any long
er than the usurping government il
self continued; and such contract
could not be under the protection of
the Federal Constitution. Although
the notes issued by the bank might be
binding, as between the bank and the
holders thereof, they could not be
made the basis of contract between
the State and the holders thereof, by