Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1880-04-05
WASHINGTON LETTER.

'pecial Correspondence PuRLIC LEDeER.l
WASHINGTON, D. c., March 3d.
The United States supreme court yes
terday rendered a number o fimport.
ant decisions, two having direct refer
ence to Tennessee laws. One of these
cases was the Howe sewing machine
company vs.. Jesse Gage, clerk of the
Sumner county court, Tennessee.
Judge Swayne delivering the
opinion. This opinion afirms
the decision of the supreme court
court OF Tennessee, declaring the state
law imposing a tax on sewing machine
peddlers valid. 1t had been resisted
on the ground hat there is another
law, %exempting from peddler's tax
those persons vending the products
Of the state. The sewing machine
law, however, taxes both home and
foreign productions.
The case of greatest importance is
that of the Memphis & Charleston R.
R. company vs.. the state of Tennessee,
Chief Justic Waite delivering the
opinion of the court, Justices Swayne
and Strong dissenting.
This suit was brought upon the
theory that section 1901 of the code
of Tennessee, which authorized suits
vs.. the state, and provided for
service of process upon the
attorney general of the district
in which the suit was brought, was
or became a part of every contract en-
tered into by individuals with the
state, and, therefore, could not be re-
pealed, so as to avoid suits on con-
tracts entered into whilst it was the.
law. Section 1907 was repealed in
1865, and it was claimed that the re-
peal was unconstitutional, because it
impaired the rights OF parties holding
bonds, or obligations of the state made
while that law was in force.
The court decides that the repeal
was constitutional-that no vested
right was impaired thereby-and
that the state can not now be sued
under that act on any contract. 1t
will be remembered that this
suit was instituted against the
state Of Tennessee as guarantee of the
bank of Tennessee, which was aheavy
debtor to the Memphisand Charleston
railroad company. The bank was es-
tablished in 1898, the state being
liable for its debts. The court holds
that, though the act Of 1855 prescribed
the method of suing the state, it gave
no means of recovering, and, there
fore, the creditor was no better off and
lost nothing when the law was re-
pealed. A large number of Tennessee
bondhOlders are interested in this de-
which is adverse to them.
The following case is very important,
inasmuch as the supreme court init
mates that the comptroller of Tennes-
see can be compelled by mandamus to
warrants for costs adiudged
against the state Of Tennessee. If a
comptroller may be thus dealt with
by a United States court, why not a
governor, for this cost is not by viz
tue of any state law or statute. The
decision does not declare that such is
a construction or application of a
lay, for there is no state law to
effect, but it asserts a principle
a liability of a state for costs in a
United States court, and the power of
such tribunal to enforce payment OF
state Indebtedness, The opinion is
as follows:
SUPREME COURT OF TUE UNITED
STATES.
The United States, ex rel. Alvin c. Phil
lips, John w. Carr, II. r. Campbell,
David Benty,. and William Spence,
plaintiffs, VS., james l.. Gaines. comp
troller of the state Of Tennessee.
On a certificate Of division in opinion
between the judges of the circuit court
Of the United States for the middle
district of Tennessee.
Mr.. Justice Strong delivered the
opinion of the court.
This case comes before us by writ
OF error in a case where there was a
Of division between the
judges of the circuit court for the
middle district Of Tennessee.
1t is a petition for a mandamus to
the comptroller of thestate command
ing him to issue his warrant to the
state treasurer for the payment of a
bill Of costs Of and indictment against
Phillips, n OF the REALTORS, and
others not named.
The petition represents that on the
10th Of October, 1870, the petitioner
Phillips, and others were indicted in
the county of Putnam for the murder
OF one Stephen Ford; that after his
arrest the said Phillips presented his
petition to the state court prayino for
a removal of the Indictment into the
circuit court of the United States, nm.
der and by virtue OF the acts of con
gress Of March 3, 1863, May II. 1866.
and February 5, 1867; that the state
court ordered and adjudged that the
cause should thus be transferred. and
that copies Of the record and ali pro.
ceedlngs In that court were made ont
and duly fled in the said United States
circuit court. The petition further
represents that the circuit court took
cognizance Of the case until l874wLen
the state OF Tennessee by her attorney
appeared and dismissed the case.
agreeing that the costs should be adj
judged against the state; that the
court accordingly rendered such a
iudOmant and tbot n o....