The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-11-19


established by the highest authority tha
there Is no proceeding or process By
which State can be compelled iC
pay i's debts, however or for whatever pur-
pose contracted. SIT il iDherenf In The
nature OF sovereignty" says Dir. Hamilton,
"not 10 te smeDabe to The srft OF an indt
1iduaI; that by adoption OF The Constitu
rr,on the Sfss,s would lot be divested OF ! be
! privilege of paying their own deeas In their
own wav, FIRE from a0y cOneiraiDS but that
wbish flows from the obligation sf good
faith" Both Hr. NJdIson and Ch%fJus.
tice Marshall ceHeUrred in this yievs. See
Federalist. Article 81, page 50S.
Mr. Webster, IN bis letter 10 Barring Bro
theirs * Co, written In October, 1S3Jl eX-
pressed himself siiIl more strongly. He
declared the seeNFity for State loans Is She
pligbted faith OF the State as political con-
mnnity. Ii rests on rbe same basis as othsr
contracts with established governments, THE
same. for example, a. loans made BY the
United States under the authority OF Con.
gress-tbat il TO say, the good faith OF the
government making the loan and its ability
10 pay.
In the case of the Memphis and Charles
ton Railroad Company US. Stite Of Tennes-
see, reported in II or, 53S, the Supreme
Court Oi the United States sand the prlnci-
pie Is elementary that State cannot be sued
in its courts without Ms consent. This is a
privilege OF sovereignty, and it may repeal
at any time its laws giving such consent,
even as TO antecedent cOntyarts, without at
all infringing the constitutional provision
bich prohibits State from passing any
law impairing the Obligation Of the con-
tract. The Coult further said when a
judgment has been rendered against the
State It's liability has been judicially aScer-
tanned; but there the power OF the Court
ends. The State is at liberty 10 determine
for itself whether to pay The Judgment or
not. The obligation OF the contract has
been finally determined, but the cllim.
ant still has only the faith and credit
OF the State to rely on for their
fuiGImeDt. The courts are pOwerless. Eve
rythiDg after the judQment depends on the
will Of the State. 1t is needless TO say that
there is hO remedy t. enforce a contract II
performance Is left tn the will OF him on
whom the obligation to perform rests. n
remedy is only wanted after entTeaty Is
ended. Consequently that is not remedy
in the legal sense OF the term. which can
only be carried into effect by entreaty.
These doctrines are perfectly familiar to this
Court. They are uneguiyocaIly expressed
in the case OF IIigginbOtham Us. The Com
monweallh, % Grat., 6il.
1t was then held all the courts c0nld do
would be to ascertain and render judgment
for the debt. Whether it shall be paid OF
not depended upon the discretion OF the
legislative department.
It is very true that with reference to
certain classes OF debts against the
state, where the sum is under $500,
the Court may enforce its iudg-
ment by mandatory process 10 the Au-
ditor, but the statutes giving this remedy
have no application 10 he interest upon the
public debt. How, and when, and to what
intent, it may be paid, depends upon the
condition Of the Treasury, the incomir e
revenues, and other circumstances to be
judged Of by a board consisting OF the OIL
GERS in he Executive Department OF the
Government.
The whole subject OF the interest OF the
public debt is taken from the jurisdiction
OF the courts. II it be conceded, there
fore, that the creditors Of the State may use
their coupons in the payment OF The Sc
taxes and other dues OF the Government.
it VIII be further conceded this is all they
can do.
UfN tdUilOl lttONtl iutll tOAIlOuN Nv
suit or other legal process. They cannot
compel the State 10 pay one dollar OF them
| O. herwise than in receipt Of her taxes.
When, thei ei0re, the petitioner, and the
same is true OF any other conpOn-hOIder,
received at the Treasury in money two.
thirds OF his interest, he received that
which be could not have recovered by law.
and that which the Safe could rot be com.
PEELED BY any tribunal to pay.
The payment was OF great benefit TO the
petitioner. Such a payment made under
such circumstances by a party under no
| legal obligation TO pay, capable OF being
enforced, would bo-univeSaIly REGARDED as
sufficient confederation for the release Of the
| third not paid.
But as a matter Of fact, The State docs not
claim the release OF any Part OF the debt
secured by the coupon. The transaction
was merely an arrangement between the
state and the coupOn-hOlder, 10y which the
latter, in consideration Of receiving TWO
thirds CT bis intere.t IN money, waived his
right OF using the other tbird in payment
Of his taXes--the State sill continuing
bound. however, for the third. Thi, ar
rangement was beneficial TO both parties,
the coupon.hOIder in receiving in money
ceiyed, and the State i'll collecting part Of
her due in money instead OF coupons.
The validity OF such an arrangement does
not. as seems to be supposed, depend upon
discussion and negotiations. a proposition
made on one side and accepted on the other
Without word OF discussion constitutes as
valid compromise as though months and
wears were expended in arranging the
terms of~settlement. This il true, whether
appljed to Governments or to individuals.
| II Is very true this Court has decided the
act inyaidatng the receivability OF coupons
| for taxes to be unconstitutional, Tut l am
at loss TO understand in what way this af-
bfects the right Of the State 10 make another
contract with the holders Of such coupons.
| The effect Of these decisions was simply to
| leave the right to use the coupons IN pay
| M ent OF taxes precisely where ii was be-
fore. That light the holder may waive as
he NAV any other demand upon far con-
tract with the State.
The petitioner was under no constralnl
| 10 accept the payment OF the two thirds IN
money. 1t was bis privilege 10 hold on 10
mis- coupons, and to apply them to his taxes
| or TO sell them TO others for this same pur'
pose. He did not choose to do so. lie
chose to waive his right, aud accept Inc
terms proposed by the State, and IN dom?
so he merely surrendered right OF seton
| to the extent OF one third Of his demand. Bu'
be was prompted to this course no doubt by
The consideration that he could use part
only OF the coupons in payment OF taxes
| that the residue must remain on his hands
or be sold at sacrifice; and that two thirds
received in money, with right OF ultimate
recourse for the other third, was more adj
yantageous arrangement 10 every respect
than the first. When it was the petitioner
presented his coupons at the Treasury does