The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-04-05
The Tennessee Case.

we need no longer 10 guess VIVA, me 0e
clsion OF the Supreme Court Of the United
States was in the case which was last weel
the subject OF several editorials IN the
Wig and the Dispatch. We have the full
opinion of the court, and give 1t below az
complete answer 10 all the Wigs guesses
and surmses. II ia as follows:
The Memphis and Charleston Railroad
Company Plaintiff in Error. rs. The
State of Tennessee, and Samuel Watson.
Trustee Of the Bank of Tennessee. In
Error TO the Supreme Court Of the State
Of Tennessee.
IMr. 'ef.Jas, ice Waite delivered the opinion of
the COUit4
On the 10Th OF January. 1883, the State Of
Tennessee established a bank in its own
name aud for its own benefit, and pledged
its faith and credit to give indemnity for all
losses arising from any deficiency III the
funds specifically appropriated as capital.
The STATE was the only stakeholder, and en-.
titled to all the profits OF the business. The
bank was by its charter capable OF suing
and being sued. At that time the Censti-
tuition OF the State contained this provi-
sion. '"Suits may be brought against the
State in such manner and In sncb courts as
the Legislature may by law direct" Gar
ticle L., section H. No law had then been
passed giving effect to this express grant Of
power. but In 1856 1t Was enacted that ac-
tons might be instituted against the State
under the same rules and regulations that
govern actions between priyale citizens,
process being served on the district at
torney Of the district in which the suit WIS
instituted. (Code. section 2,S07) No
power'was given the courts to enforce their
Judgments, and the money could only be
got through an appropriation by the Legis-
lature.
In 1906 this law was repealed, and after
that there-was no law prescribing theimao-
ner or the courts In which suits could be
brought against the State. On the 18th of
February, 1866, IN act was passed 10 wind
up and settle the affairs OF the bank, under
which an assignment OF all the property
was madeto Samuel Watson, trustee. After
wards, 90 the 18Th May, 1866. the Stste.and
the trustee filed bill in equity in the
Chancery Court at Nashville against the
bank aud ats creditors for an account of
debts and assets aud a decree OF distribu-
lion. AT the November term, 1872. OF the
eonrt, the Memphis aud Charleston Railroad
Company was admitted as q defendant to
this suit andagiven leave TO die cross bill.
This cross.bili was accordingly filed and set
forth an indebtedness from the bank to the
railroad company which accrued while
the law allowing suits against the
State was i'm existence, and sought to
enforce the liability OF the State under
the indemnity, clause OF the charter. TO
<bis DILL both. the state and Watson, THE
trustee, demurre6, and assigEad for, cause,
among others, that the State could not be
sued. fhis demurrer was sustained by the
Chapcsrg Coutt, ana the cr0ss-hil dis
missed. An appeal was then taken to the
6HpremesCourt OF The State. where the de.
cree. bsaAw was affirmed upon the express
ground tlat the repeal OF the law. antbor
jripg suits against the State was valid and
did not impair. the obligation Of the con-
tract which the Railroad company had. All
other. questions we're waived by ahe court,
and the decision placed entirely on tbe
ground that as the State could not be sued
in Is own c0krts the bill must be dsamIssed,
To rGyerse that Judgment this writ of error
was brought.
The question we have to decide isnot5
whetker the State is liable for tue debts Of
the Max to tie ralrced COMPANY. bur
whether 1t can be sued in its own courts 10
enforeedhat liability. The principle is ele-
mentaEy Sbat Safe cannot be sued a1i its
own eeuMs-wi,hoGt its consent. This is a
privilege OF sovereignty. u is conceded
that wtep s<his sDit was beguG the State lad
withdrswults consent to be sued, and a.ie
only Q0eatsep now to be determined ia 1
whether that Withdrawal impaircd the ob,J-
Gati0n q the contract which the ralroaS 4
company seeks 10 enforce. II Il did it was
fnOperatlves 80 Jar as THIS suit Is concerned.
and the original consent remains In full
force for VII the purposes OF the aerticuiar
contract or 6abiiky here involved.
The remedy, which Is protected ,by the
coutrsc, clause II ahe Constitution. N some
thing more tasp tie privilege of having a
claim adjudlcfted. Mere 4 dicial ,pS1 nv
into zhe rights af parties is not enesgn.
There Knust be ihe power to enforce khe
results - sich sH inquiry before there can
De SAID to be rentedy which the Constitk-
ton deems part II . contract. inquiry Il
one thing, Eemedy apother. Adtsdlcations
Is Of 20 yatxe as remedy unless enforce
inene follows. 1t l. II a~practical import 4
ance that fifbt has been established. In the
right " no mare ayzilaeie afterwards thar
before. The Csnstitulisa preserves <<aly ,
ssci' remedies ~ are required TO enforce q
o4ptfncf.
Hare tne State bss consented to be sues :
only Tor The purposes Cf adjudication. Tbes
poWfr u tue courts sDded when The judx.|
mepf Hss rendered Ia effect, s}i that has 4
pefa Qqoe ls - xtve iscfsOns hOldiak cIsims ! !,
okalp~f the stste The privilege of having
1ofm au4{ed 0y The courts, iHstend " come
.peeQpftAie accounting oiicer. When q | b
Io0x4 ent ~ kcen rep6ered the Ijab,lifv ~
~ 6lnse tss been jndlcisIiy ssce,faIned.
9!lt llIeso The power 81 The courr epds. Tes
Ny = = v''fsY ~ astsrmirs Tor ,tself D