The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-12-08
! me-

MONDAY !. y. u l)tss f3asR ~
mus.
The decision Of Chic TAME Z tnasi
arongress y ,nnot cserse q ssate oifscef s
snc,, g o.. ,fornn any duty by act OF Co.'S
aress, does not il, The least touch the quts.
noas .hesher the Federal courts have 3 ftlt
posser 10 compel The Auditor ana I reasaIss )
Ut Virginia 70 comply with the pros islens
az ths sfcCunLocH act NsDcas anonss.
,ss.a q rnn,ars. " or at any rate amongst
, 49, q ,hsn who are state.rtghts men,
,s,I, ,,,sns,ts for q moment the opinion o.
shat great lawyer on this point. Tue suc'
$500 800 ~ CHEZ. Justice .TASEY's decision
sss that Congress cannot compel a s.a a.
nfsacer 10 perform duties under an az.
] :, congress; because g IL It possessed tn's
nower IL might overload the officer Win
1.inties which would dill up all MS time anu
disable him from performing bis obligations
so his sfate.., In q word. Congress has no
power 70 require State officers 70 perform
duties prescribed only by acts OF C 20 re-
thunder this deeision. The Democrats c'a,ui
.hat The acts. Of Congress imposing du aNss'
,,,,aa 8, ste officers In connection Win eiec-,
,iars for congressman are all unconstatu-
,;ona,. and several cases are now pera-
Ing IN the Supreme Court o. the un,teo
states in which this very ground ls taAe 81,
! nv the counsel representing tue views =,
i the Democratic party. $500. -,
J; But surely every reader can see tnat tue
$3.50 decided by Cniei.Justice TANEY IS not
the one in which the friends Of the McoOL-
1ot,R net claim that the Federal courts VIII
claim and exercise Jurisdiction lnere Is
mo posstbi,ity ins this latter case that the
s,ote. officer. can be overloaded with duties
s,,.,der an act OF Congress. It is under Az
= 90, 81 fhe Legislature OF his own STATE 'that
no ws,l be required to act. There Is GO
possible danger Of disabling bin !fen per
forming his obligations to the STATE oa
the contrary, the naandamus VIA De- II az
nl, to compel hifs to perform his duties as
a,cor n the State and under q law Of
the State. i. III i
Even, however, il Chief.Justlce TASEY's
decision were applicable;to the case unaer
considerations, it would not follow tnat .
.dac;,ion rendered by states-rigbts Judge,
.aDd before the lnte civil wsr, would De re-
snected by the present Supreme Court OF
the United States. Chief. Justice Fancy
rendered the decision and wrote the op'n'
ion. OF the Supreme Court OF the United
States in the famous ,DRED-ScoTT case. no"
would that decision be treated by that same
.sribunui now il the. same question, ian I'M
nossibIe thing, we know,) or even one
somewhat similar, were to come Defore L.
We need not answer. ~" *@@
Rut the fact is that the Federal courts
haze assumed jurisdiction in Just such
- cases as would be before them II BONA
holder were to apply to one OF tbem to
+ ,Sssue a,writ OF maudamus compelling the
Auditor or the Treasurer OF virginia 70
,Tersorm his duty under the MCCULLOCH
act. 'In,sth Wallace is reported a case OF the
!. sort from Tennessee. The Legislature OF
that State had chartered bank, bad made
the State stakeholder, and had provided
that the notes OF the bank should be re-
.ceiyed for taxes; Just as our Legislature has
provided that the coupons OF our bonds
shall lie received for taxes. The bank issued
too many notes. 1t became insolvent. In
1865 State Convention (mind you, not the
Legislature, though the power OF both IS
the same under such circumstances probl'
bitsd the receipt Of the notes OF the broken
bank Tor taxes, and provided that no State
court should compel the officers to receive
> ahena for taxes. The Courts OF Tennessee,
Ito their discredit, decided that the Conven-
~ ton bad scted within the scope OF its pow
.ers, and that the State officers could not be
!. forced. TO receive the notes OF the broken
bank fer taxes. The case was taken to the
Supreme. Court OF the United States, which
reversed the decision, OF the Tennessee
!. courts; and decided that the charter made
= .scontract', 1.-THE very word used in the NC
), .-Cu1LoaR act] on the part OF the State Win
5. all notehoiders OF the, bank that the notes
S4of that bank should be received for taxes
due, the State; and that the State omcers
must respect that contract.
And so there Is the end Of controversy or
this point. The decision Just referred u
is not an ante-bellum decision, put one ieh
), dered by the Supreme Court OF the unlte'
.Statesvery recentfy-onlg afew years ago
Il,.o fro