The Morristown gazette. [volume] (Morristown, Tenn.) 1867-1920, 1875-06-02
THE NEW ISSUE.
The Supreme Court Declares the
State not Liable for its Pay
ment.

lhls is q petition OF Jacob B1oom
stein i'm the common law court, fol
a peremptory mandamns. requiring
Thos. III. Sneed, Tax Collector fol
Davidson county, to receive from
him Sl30 in the notes OF the Bank
of Tennessee issued after $ May 6,
1861, in payment for his State tax.
es for the year 1872. saa
The first question raised by the
demurrer is as to the jurisdiction OF
the common law court to grant the
writ of mandamus. The petitioner
bases hls application upon a 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, origi,
nally made payable. or which shall
have become payable on demand. in
4 gold or silver coin, shall be receiya-
bic 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 yir-
the Of this provision of the bank
charter, the State entered into a
contract with every holder of any Of
the bills or notes of the bank, by
which she hound berself that the
same should be received by her Tax
Collectors in payment of taxes due
the Safe and that the notes SO ten-
dered to Sneed as Tax Collector
! were issued by the bank.
| 1t is legal as well as q political
axiom rllat no sovereign government
can be sued in its own courts. ex-
cept by its own consent. 1t is true.
however, that in 1856 the State gave
her consent that suits might be
drought against her as against indi-
yiduals, and this law remained in force
until 1865, when it was repealed.
and since that time no law has been
enacted authorizing suits against the
State. 1t was during the period
that the act of 1855 carried into the
code section 2807 was in force. that
the notes of the bank now in con-
troversy were issued, and down to
its repeal in 1865, the holders of the
notes so issued had the right to en-
force the contract Of guaranty con
taihed in the 18th section of the
bank charter.
I When the bank was chartered in
1888, the State undertook to receive
the issues of the bank, in payment
of taxes assessed for the support of
the State government. then in oper-
alton. That State government. how
ever. was snpplanted by the military
and de fitcto government which was
/ inaugurated by the Legislature, and
carried out by majority Of the peo-
pie in 1861, in the acts by which it
was attempted to separate the State
from the Federal Union, and to de-
clare its independence. These acts
were invalid aud void, so far as they
were intended to affect, or to change
| the relation Of the State to the Fed
eral Union; but they were ehectual.
for the time, in expelling the au-
thority of The United States govern
ment, and in setting up new local
government in place Of the State
government supplanted. Tie State
remained in the Union, and the Con-
stitutien of the United States con-
tinued to exist and to operate with
the State during all the time that,
the asurped government was in ex-
| istenee. The laws which had pre-
vailed before the attempted revolu-
ton. so far as they were not express
ly repealed or changed by the iegis-
lation of the de ftcto government,
continued in force, as between the
citizens Of the new government. over
their private contracts continnedun-
der the protection Of the Federal
fConstitution.
s In this way the charter Of the bank
| continued in force, and its transac-
ton as a banking corporation were
binding as between1 the bank and
those dealing with it, It's capacity
to receive deposits, andtto issue a
circulation, was the same as before
the inauguration oftlie new govern.
ment. The contracts made by the
bank with the citizens dealing with
it. were protected. from impairment
by the Federal Constitution as effect
tually during the existence of the
usurped government as before.
Il il well settled that all legal and
valid contracts between citizens of
the rebel States were so far under
the prot otection Of the United States
Constitution during the prevalence
of the rebellion. .sthat they could not.
be impaired by the Legislatures of
the restored State governments. The.
questionapresents itself, was the con-
tract of guaranty between the State
aud the holders of the, new 1ssae
arising. under section Ii of the bank
charter, under the protection of the
Fe deral Constitution during the re-.
bellioHs If so. then the act of the
legislature reputiiating that issue
was Invalid. TIfnot, then that act
was legitimate and effective. Has.
It has been repeatedly decided
that the government inauguFated in
the place or the Legitimate State
government, was only operative rs
military or de fitct0 civil governments.
but in as far as il was opposed to
the Federal government or to she
legitimate State government. that Il
was an illegal nsurpation. To hold,
therefore, that the contract revised
by the 18th section or the han K char
ter was valid obligation on the
State, protected from impairment by
the Federal Constitution, would be
to hold that the Constitution pro-
9eetea a contract which bound the
State 10 guarantee the payment Of
taxes raised to sustain government
in open hostility to the Federal Con
u4ffftfiar4s nnf1 fla Lrn1orcI TYnf.,r,