The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-03-31


The Virginia coupon-Contract'
n the decision Of The Supreme Court OF
the United states Ia the case OF the Men-
chls and Charleston Railroad IS. The state
81 Tennessee h correctly stated 10 the te'e-
rrams sent out from Washington on Mon
DIV, Il would not be difficult 10 foree.~st
what would be the decision Of that ccdrt "
: case we're to 20 up from Virginia involv-
log the constituiions'ity OF any stt OF our
Legislature which might try, IS the RIDDLE
pxRosR bill did, to take away from The Gre
ditors Of this State any substantial remedy
which their contract with the Common
wealth has bestowed upon them. Whcs
we nrst read the telexrapttc statement OF
the decision In the Tennessee case. asa
learned that the Supreme Court had Ge-
cided that the act Of the Legislature was
valid wdsch repeated the law giving 10 the
credllers OF Tennessee the right to s'fs 10
the State courts, we began to think that The
RfppLgB xH0ER ts,l might stand the test 10
which It would be subjected In that higb
tribunal. But upon more carefa'veao'ns
oi the statement we found that precisey
she reverse Nas the tenor OF the decision.
Let as look At 1t.
The State OF Tennessee had lew years
ago upou her statute book a law which
allowed her creditors to sue her IN her OVID
courts. Th,f lIw was repealed by the Lee
gisla,ure. The validity OF the cepealins act
was questioned In the Supreme Court OF
that State, but was affirmed bythat tribunal.
Upon appeal, the Supreme Court OF The
United States affirmed the decision OF the
court below. But wbyf Because the right
10 sue which the State gave her creditors
was not in legal effect Judicial remedy Tor
the enforcement OF their contract with her;
but was merely contract that she would
allow herself to be sued as means Of Sc
curing an adjudication Of the points In
dispute between her and her creditors.
The Court says that the true state OF the
case was evident from the fact that when
the State Court had decided, 1t had no power
to enforce IFS decision, seeing that the State
might refuse to pay and the court could
not compel her TO do so. The report 81
what the Supreme Court Of the United
States said continues as follows:
"Tbe remedy which Is protected By the
contract clause OF the Federal Constitution
Is something more than the privilege Of
having the claim adjudicated. 1t must IN
clude the power to enforce the results of
such adjudication. Only such statutes as
are required to enforce contract are pro-
fected by the Federal Constitution. The
-.,~At ha Gfatn
tors was practically Of no value to them as
q means Of enforcing their contracts. II
gave them no real remedy, and consequent
ly the Withdrawal of that right did not i'm
pair the Obligations Of their contracts with
10 the meaning OF the prohibtory clause OF
the Federal Constitution"
Now, the remedy which the Supreme
Court OF the United States declares that the
Federal Constitution protects is just the
kind Of one which the State OF Virginia
gave to her creditors in the tsX-feceiyable
feature Of the funding act of 1871. ibis
remedy sis something more than the priyi-
lege Of having the claim aGiudcated."
The power to "enforce the results Of an
adjudication - belongs to the courts Of Fir-
gina. The creditors tender their coupons for
their taxes, and il the State officer refuses
10 receive them the courts will by man
damus compel bin to receive the coupons.
The remedy is complete. The State con-
tracted Jbat they shoa.d be received for
taxes; and each creditor has it ia his power
10 enforce the contract. The laws of the
State give him his remedy. "Tbe right to
sue which the State" Of Virginia "granted
TO her creditors ,ods practically Of great
value TO them as means OF enforcing their
contract o.; and therefore. according TO the
reasoning OF the Supreme Court, cannot be
taken away from them. "It gave them
real remedy; and consequently the with
drawa OF that right would impair the
obligation OF their contract within the
meaning Of the prohibtory clause Of the
Federal Constitution"
The RIDDLEBERGER bill undertook TO de-
priye Virginia's creditors OF this "reai
remedy" II undertook to repeal not a
simple contract that the State would allow
herself to be sued, but contract that she
would receive coupons In payment OF taxes.
This contract is valuable one, and one that
can be enforced by the courts Of the State.
Hence it is evident that to undertake to
deny to the States creditors the "real
remedy" which they now have would be n
violation OF the Federal Constitution, and
would not be allowed by the Supreme Court
1f the United States.