The Milan exchange. (Milan, Gibson County, Tenn.) 1874-1978, 1882-02-18
aside her sovereignty in order to have

IL cOn5true1 ny the courts.
Judge Ewing said: No court shall
haveauthority to entertain any organ
ic suit against the state or against any
officer of the state with Il view of
reaching the state. This is in accnr.
dance with an act of 1878, see nu
objection to The chancellor dlSmi,sin.
the bill on his own motion. Before
the demurrer is filed the court may
oUk itself to see whether the court has
jurisdiction, and may of its own mo,
ton dismiss the bill. This is suit
against the state. Whether the fund
lug board or officer sor agents OF the
state they cannot be reached by this
bill. The act is prima facie the law
of the land. They do not call them
officers, but it is evident they ale
trying to reach the state. Has not
the state protected herself by the act
of 1873? The state is necessarily Il
party to the suit that interests her.
Bills quiata met do not lie to protect
remote injuries. The question,
it seems to me, is political
struggle, and not to protect honest
rights and the law. The question is
asked, Is there no way of stopping
unconstitutional acts This seems to
have been considered in the act of
1873, and was thus passed 70 prevent
any suits. No taxpayer is at present
suffering, and there is no evidence he
will suffer. The compromise is favor
| able to the state and its citizens. Ger.
tainly there can be no irreparable
mischief in denying the right to inves.
tigate question in advance. But
there is irreparable mischief in not
settling conflict that will forever ef.
feet the state. Is it proper that this,
our court, should decide II question
unconstitutional for fear some other
court may declare it unconstitutional?
Is 1t possible to try aquestion between
the taxpayer and stranger? IS it
possible to try question between
the taxpayer and an officer of the
state? The cases in regard to the re-
moval Of county seats have no analo~
gy 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 prima
tacie the law Ofthe state, and must
be held to be conclusively until the
contrary is shown. As II citizen |
was not i'll favor Of the 1908, nor the
coupon feature in it. | was in favor
of reducing the principal instead of
the interest; but as it has passed
l am, as a judge, called upon to con-
slider it, The question as to the ina
bility or ability to pay the debts can
not arise in discussion of the question
before us. That the thirty taXpay-
ers can arrest the carrying out Of the
contract 10y the state when there
Is no allegation, that they applied to
the Governor, and when they have
not alleged any special injury to them
different from any other taxpayers Of
the state is not my view Of the law.
The cases where suits can he brought
by taxpayers are against the munich
pal corporation, but the state is not a
corporation, she is sovereign; she is
not trustee for the taxpayer in the
case Of the municipal corporation, she
being a trustee and taxpayer the ces-
tut que trust no taxpayer can bring a
suit where he can not show that he
has sustained special injury. 1t seems
impossible to discuss the character Of
the general assembly without they
are parties to the bill. Treachery
by the legislature has never been ala
lowed by the court to invalidate an
act. The charge Of bribery may be
submitted to a Judge who may be
himself bribed. The judiciary can
not absorb the power of the legisla-
ture. There are cases that are abse>
quei injura and courts cannot enter
tain them, and this one, | think, is
one of them. The power to make
the contract, it seems to me, gives
them the power to incorporate the
coupon feature. If the contract is
unconstitutional it may be repealed
by the next legislature. If it
can be enforced after it is con-
summated it is because of the
contract. If it is no contract
then the court will not enforce it.
The law maybe unwise, but is not for
that reason unconstitutional. What
injdry will be done then if the act is
unconstitutional and the contract no
contract at all and can be ignored or
repealed by a subsequent legislatureY