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


pends on TIE viii Of The Ststs. II u need
less N 10 say that there is nc. remedy TO en-
force contract II perform .auce Is left TO the
viii OF him on whom the. obligation TO per
form rests. A remedy q only wanted after
eutreaty Is ended. C. snspputntly that Is mol
a remedy In the cal sense OF the tern
which can only be carried into effect by en-
treaty.
II is clear, therefore, TINT the right t
sue, which ssr state OF Tennessee onc'
gave ITS err .A,tors, was no, In legal effect
Judicial <enetiy for the enforcement OF III
contrac n. ana that The obligation OF It's con
sracts wSs not ispaired, within the mean
ing 81 the proAibitory clause OF the const,
u ,ftas az the United States, by taking Il
xSsuv This renders II unnecessary 70 CON
Ix,a,r whether In this suit cross-bill couie
lbsve been maintained by the railroad com
rmny n the right 10 sue had been continued
land also whether remedy given aIter Tue
charter ef the bank was granted, Out ~
force when the debt OF the bank was IN
curred. might be taken away without I'M
nairInr The obligation Of the contract OF the
State 20 indemnify the creditors against loss
by reason OF any deficiency In the capital
| Neither do we find II necessary 10 ueter,
mine what would be complete !udicla
remedy against a State, nor whether II suca
q remedy had been given the obligation OF
contract entered into by The state wnen u
was i'm existence would ie impaired ny
taking IL away. What we do deciue IS 'ha'
no.such remedy was given in this case.
| Judgment affirmed.
Let us note what differentia,es this case
from the case of Virginia. First, enc
power was given TO the courts to enforce
their judgments. and the money could only
be got through an appropriation by the
legislature" Not so in Virginia. Here
the State contracted to receive the coupons
for taxes. An appropriation by the Legs'
lature was not necessary. The coupons
were made self-collecting; and 1t neces'
sariiy followed that II the State officers re-
fused to receive them the courts had the
power to compel their receipt.
The opinion goes on with the recital OF
the facts In the case. Its tirst dictum is that
"tbe principle is elementary that a State
cannot be sized in its own courts without
| its'consent." We quote this merely to say
| that it presents no difficulty to our side. II
IS, as the court says, an elementary prin'
cipIe," end Is disputed by nobody; because
| il is ga privilege Of sovereignty" eve
must admit that il sounds like irony to bear
that tribunal talking OF sovereignty in this
conneclion.l But hear the court:
at is conceded that when this suit was
begun the State had withdrawn its consent
to be sued, and the only question now TO be
determined IL whether that Withdrawal i'm
paired the obligation OF the contract which
the railroad company seeks to enforce. II
IL did ii cQS imperative so far as this Snit
is Concerned, and the original consent re-
mains in full force for all the purposes of
the particular contract or liability here IN
UOiUed."
Here the Supreme Court expressly de-
clares that If the act Of the Legislature OF
Tennessee had gone SO far as to impair the
obligation OF her contract that high tribu-
nal would lave pronounced the act uncon-
stitutional and would have declared that
the original contract was IN full force. OF
course, then, il Virginia were TO undertake
to change her contract and pass an act re-
fusiDg 10 receive coupons for taxes the Su-
preme Court would pronounce such act to
be constitutional and declare the origi-
nal contract to be 10 full force. That is the
whole case.
The court then tells why it did moi find
the Tennessee contract to be such o one as
would bring it under the protection OF the
Constitution OF the United States. The
reason given is that Tennessee gave her
creditors only the power to sue her for the
purposes OF adjudication. Her courts had
no further power conferred upon them in
this behalf. But Virginia made with her
creditors valuable, substantial contract;
nor merely au agreement TO allow her courts
to tind out how much she owed them, but q
contract to receive the coupons clipped from
their bonds for all debts, dues, demands,
taxes, aud what not, owing to the State.
80 IL Is Of no practical importance that
right has beer established ii the right Is no
more available than before that Is, it is
OF no practical importance to find out how
much the State owes unless you can col
Iect the debt; but ia Virginia the contract
provided a means Of collecting the debt,
and therefore is a contract which the Su.
preme Court will enforce.
Again: "The power OF the courts ended
when the judgment was rendered" Why {?
Because the State of Tennessee had
" consented TO he sued only for the pur-
poses Of adjudication" Can language be
clearer han that? ''The State is at liberty
TO determine for itself whether to pay The
judgment or not" Whyp For the same
reason: "Sbe had consented to be sued
only for the purposes Of adjudication. -
Not so in Virginia.
Again: 1T is needless to say that there
Is no remedy TO enforce contract il per-
Torrance is left to the will Of him on whom |
Ibe obligation to perform rests" But that
Is not the case ia Virginia. "Periorm-
ince" was not "left TO the will of him on
whom the obligation to perform rests" On
he contrary, Virginia gave her creditors
bower TO perform the contract for them
is, made her obligations self.
collecting.
Lastly "What zoe do decide is that no
'ach remedy ,odS given in this case" Elk.
ctly. But 10 Virginia complete remedy
vas given by contract; and the Supreme
Court of,ahe United States Will enforce that
One OF tle English election phrases for
which there Is no equivalent IN the United
iates is 'tplumping." Wherever con-
htuency returns two members, each voter
1n give one vote each to any two candi-
'stes, but he canBot give bis two votes TO
nv one candidate. If be chooses be can