The Morristown gazette. [volume] (Morristown, Tenn.) 1867-1920, 1882-02-22


No court shall have the authority to
entertain any organized suit against tie
State or against any sfilcer of the State.
This is in accordance with the act of
1873. 1 see no objection Of the chancel-
Tor Diminishing the bin on his own mo-
ton. Before the demurrer is filed, the
court may look itself to see whether the |
court has jurisdiction and may of its
own motion dismiss the bill.-This is |
suit against the State.
Whether the funding board are Off |
GERS or agents of the State, they can not
be reached by this bill. The act is
qrin1a tGeie the law OF the land. They
do not call them officers, but it is evident
they are trying to reach the State.-Has
not the State protected herself by the
act of 1873 (? The State is a necessary
party to suit that interests her. Bills
puia tinaet do not lie protect remote in
juries. The question, it seems to me,
isEa political struggle, and not to protect
honast rights and the law. The ques-
ton is asked is there no way of stop
ping unconstitutional acts This seems
to have been considered in the act OF
1878, aud thus passed to prevent any
suits. No taxpayer is at present suffer
ing and no evidence that he will suffer.
The compromise is favorable to the
State and its citizens.
Certainly there can be no irreparable
-, the ~ h IN invaori-
gate a question in advance, but there is
irreparable mischief in not settling
conflict that will forever affect the State.
Is it proper that this, our court, should
decide question unconstitutional Is it
possible to try question between the
tax payer and stranger Is it possible
| To try question between the taxpayer
| and an officer of the State The cases
in regard to the removal of county seats
have no analogy to the present case.
There is no case in our State where
| an officer has been prohibited from
carrying out the order of the State.
The act is pTEHsG JGcia the law of the
/ State, and must be held to be conclus-
lively so until the contrary is shown. As
a citizen, was not in favor of the 1908,
nor the coupon feature in it. l was in
favor of reducing it. But as it has pass
ed, am, as judge, called upon to con-
sideI It.
The question s-to inability or ability
to pay the debt can not arise in the dis
cussion of the question before US. That
thirty taxpayers can arrest the carrying
| out of counter act by the State when
there is no allegation that they applied
to the Governor aud when they have
not alleged any special injury to them
different from any other taxpayer Of
the State is not my view OF the law.
The cases where suits can be brought
by Taxpayers are against the municipal
| corpsTatiOn, but the State is not a COY
| pora:ion; she is a sovereign; she is
case Of the municipal corporation bsin 3
trustee, and the taxpayer the cest'li
que trast.
No taxpayer can bring a suit where
he can not show that he has sustained a
special injury. 1t seems impossible 20
discuss the character of the General AS
sembly without they are parties to the
bill.
Treachery by the Legislature has
never been allowed by the court to in
validate an act.
The charge of bribery my be submitted
to a Judge who may himself be bribed.
The judiciary cannot absorb the pow
er of the Legislature.
There are cases which are GbsQUe an
j0uySs, and the court cannot entertain
them, and this one, 1 think, is one OF
them.
The power to make the contract, il
seems TO me, gives them the power to
incorporate the coupon feature. If the
co ltract is unconstitutional, it may be
repealed by the next Legislature. If ii
can be enforced after it is consummated
it is because it is contract If it is nc
contract, then the court will not enforce
it.
The law may be unwise, but il is moi
for that reason unconstitutional. What
injury will be done then if the act is
unconstitutional and the contract uC
contract at all, and can be ignored oil
repealed by subsequent Legislature
Ii it is unconstitutional at all it is up
pom speculative possibility. To re-
peal a contract founded on an unconsti
tutional act, is not imparing the obliga
tious of a contract, and hence there il
no threatened damage to the taxpayers
We are asked to prevent something tina
does not exist. The subsequent Legis
lature still have the right as TO " hethe
they appropriate the money or not. 1
they do not make the appropriation thel
it is with them. To suppose that tn
supreme Court would decide otherwise
that we would, and therefore we should
, decide as they think we would, and il
conflict with our views, is libel on tn
Supreme Court of the State. If tn
coupons are drawing money from tn
Treasury then the appropriations ar
already made and the sovereignty of tn
!, State is still maintained and this cou
, pom feature does not take il away from
any subsequent Legislature. We hav
an existing debt which we should settle
This act settles it at an abatement o
interest, and does mol violate and con
stitutionaI enactment.
Chief Justice Deaderick stated foul
prop ositions upon which he based hi
opinion, the same as Judge Ewing, say
ing that he cOncurred in the opinion Of
that Judge in holding that the decree o
the chancellor ought TO be affirmed.
A Word to Mothers.
Mothers should remember it is a mos
important duty at this season to lOei
. | aft,.r the health of their families AM