The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-04-27
Has State the Reserved Right Of Re
puGiation?

quotation
The opinion OF the United States SUI
preme Court in the case of Murray against
the city OF Charleston contains paragraph
that will afford good deal Of occupation to
the reckless demagogues Of "forc!ble re-
adiusters,'' who are ever asserting that there
is no mode OF compelling State to pay its
Just obligations. The Supreme Court GER
tainly takes few curls out Of the Wanting
logic OF these people. The paragraph to
which we allude is as follows:
"The truth is States and cities, when they
borrow money and contract to repay 1t with
interest, are not acting as soverelgnGles.
They come down to the level OF ordinary
individuals. Their contracts have the same
meaning as that Of similar contracts be-
tween private persons. Hence, instead OF
there being in the undertaking Of State
or city to pay reservation OF sovereign
right to withhold payment, the contract
should be regarded as an assurance that
such right will not be exercised. A prom
Use 20 paw with reserved right to deny or
change the effect Of the promise is an alb
surdtty."
The view presented here knocks the pins
from under the Boosting repudiators-the
high phase in which they are constantly
presenting the act OF reputation as one
that is above law and above retribution
The view OF the Supreme Court changes
and reduces this phase down to the low con.
dition Of the violation OF contract, which
is upon level with a contract "between
Individuals"
This is what the highest court in the
United States says, and what are they going
to do about it II the COURTS right, as of
course it is, then it must follow that there
ought to be The means by which such a con-
tract as that can be enforced.
The Federal Union has stood the test Of
ability to avoid disruption, and has become
more thoroughly established as capable by
force and dignity to endure. The result
has imposed additional obligations upon it
to maintain its dignity and authority against
everything that initiates against either. In
view Of this it is a significant thing that the
Supreme Court declares that States do not
borrow money as soyereigns, but only in
the way OF business transaction as between
1AnltluudIS. vi Suu4pSt 49, 'NAS - =
the Supreme Court, Virginia cannot bring
her sovereignty into court in matter OF
complaint concerning her default in the
payment Of borrowed money. And now,
taking this in connection with the increased
obligations and power OF the National Gov
eminent to maintain It's dignity and au-
thority, 1t takes no great stretch OF fancy
for us TO perceive thar the States cannot be
permitted TO faint the public honor Of the
land by disregarding the inyiolability Of
contracts.
We repeat, we do not pretend 10 explain
the faodns operandi, but the Supreme Court
plainly points out State iaithlessness that
cannot be screened from law by State
sovereignty, and necessarily that Court
knows how the delinquent may be brought
20 Judgment. S3.3
We leave 1t TO the sread listers to explain.
They have work before them, and we ap-
pfebeDd ills TO grow heavier as time goes
on, unless the, abandon their vicious plan
sot capturing the public Offices OF tbe State