The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-04-07
Photographed.


Paragraphical.
Philadelphia Times; There is nothing q
all improbable in the explanation Of Rob
ertson's nomination for collector of NeV
York, which is telegrsphed from that city
Senator Conklng is not above the practic
Of such tricks as that imputed to him, ant
probably he had reason to suppose, withou
any assurance whatever from the president
that If Merritt could DO elbowed out Of thu
custom house some machine man would b
put in and the Conkllng power fully re-
stored. In the game OF politics, however
the tricks are not all on ono side, and Sena
tor Conkling must have been convinced OF
this when, after tricking Merritt out he
found that his most implacable political enc
my had been given the vacancy. II never
pays to DO too smart.
st. Louis Globe.Democrat We are pre-
pared to give large sum of money to any
man who will furnish q good reason for a
war against Roscoe Conkling within the
ranks Of the republican party. We can I'M
derstand why dhe democrats should want
republican in the United States wants him to
stay whore he is rs long as no lives AT any
rate tho Globe. Democrat votes loud NO on
any proposition looking to his injury or
humiliation.
New York Herald: The opinion of
the United States supreme court
In tho case of Williams against
Brutfy. the full text of which is now
published, emphatically asserts the national
authority against one of the most unwar,
ranted attempts made by any southern
court since the war to give practical effect to
the doctrine of state rights. The contro.
versy grew out Of a sale of goods made by
q Pennsylvania firm to citizen of Virginia
before hostilities opened in 1861. As soon
as commercial intercourse was restored
between the north and south VII action for
the value of tho goods WIS brought in the
circuit court of Rockingham county, Va,
To this the defense was set up that the
amount Of the debt had been paid to the
Confederate government under a law pro-
vlding for the conascaton of all debts
due to alien enemies, and therefore
the debtor was not obliged to pay it n second
time. Groundless as this plea was it was
sustained by the court, and judgment was
entered for the defendant. The plaintiffs
thereupon applied to the Virginia
court of appeals for a writ of
suporsedess TO bring the case before that tr-
bunal for review. Strange to say, the court
ofappeals denided the writ, and stranger
still, denied it on tho ground that the iudg,
ment below was "plsinly right" The case
was thereupon carried to tho United States
supreme court, which promptly decided that
the decision of tho court of appeals was
plainly wroag, Ms we'll as tho judgment of
the Rockingham county court. A mandate
was accordingly issued requiring tho former
tribunal to grant writ of error or SUPER
seieas to the judgment redered by the latter.
This mandate the court OF appeals refused
to obey. 1t based its refusal partly on cor.
tain provisions in tho statutes of
Virginia, TO which no reference had been
made in It's frs. decision, and partly on
the ground that the judgment Of the court
below was "plainly right" 1t further
asserted that lis decision was final so far as
the federal Ms we'll as the state judiciary was
concerned. $50 longAs this decision remains
unreversed," says Mr.. Justice Field in the |
opinion Of the United States supreme court |
1T will DO authority to all the inferior courts
OF virginia that the con0scation Of debts |
due TO loyal citizens under An act Of the con.
iederate government enforced as q law of
TIE stale was q valid proceeding" Nor
would this have been all. What Virginia
might have done every southern state would |
have had equal right and power to do. A
great safeguard to the fruits Of tho war
would have been swept away, aud there is
no telling TO what further extent the
doctrine of state rights might not have
been carried In defiance of the national
government. The United States supreme
court was not slow 10 kill In the bud what
must have proved a mischiovous precedent, |
Whom the matter was brought before II A
second time II promptly declared that the
statutory objections raised BY the Virginia
court OF appeals were groundless, and that
that tribunal was wholly unjustinsl In hold
Ing the judgment below 10 be "plsinlv
right" The supreme court then withdrow
It, mandate 10 the court Of appeals. directlv
reversed the decision Of the Rockinehsm
county circuit court and ordered final {udo.
mont for the full amount Of their claim 10 bs
awarded 70 the PLAINTIFF. This comnlets
quitting Of the misguided appellate court Of
Virginip, on the ground that that tribunal
"andS ilself embarrassed In 10 action upon
our mandate BY reason Of the statute n
which no reference was made In IL oririusl
declsion," was stroke Of satire on he mart
Of Tie disninsd judges a Washing,on N
Aesn u Il q rare.
New York Evening Mail The phrase.
10 RddlsberRer the South, !" current among
politicians 10 Washington, expresses thc
seeence Of The scheme that has prevented tbe
seosla NON. performing " only ofaolal Outs
-u0 q acsing In " executive capacity.
As3e oemocrHu condensed their campaign
slelaes 0efasA md brought Il 70 On isuom.
mlous -. BY covering the sldswalks ana
Ssssn VIVA 1879" chalk .mArks, 70 the