Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-01-20

The Supreme Court opened at $50 o'clock
on Wednesday morning, when Mr.. John j.
Vertrees, the BaHHer tells Us, resumed and
finished the argument he commenced the day
before. 1t consisted of reeapitulation OF
his foregoing speech, with some illustrations
and explanations.
ArEumenI of a ID: bright, of Browns
viIIe-
Mr.. A. D. Bright, of Brownsville, then
said; Upon examination of the authorities
cited by the preceding attorney, that it con-
sisted Of the largest amount of shucks for
such a small ear Of corn, as he had ever seen.
He said he had no printed brief, like the
other attorney, as they were too poor in his
country to have one printed for him.
The bill gives what the compliments
charged, the political views and patty plat
forms of the people of Tennessee. 1t charges
fraud, bribery and corruption. They do not
say to what extent they are injured in char
acter or property, or what His
first proposition was, that this is a
suit against the State; the State is party to
the contract. 1t does not provide that NJ. T.
Polk and D. A. Num- sh all carry out the act;
it provides for tie comptroller, treasurer and
governor. To enjoin the defendants is en-
Joining the State. In the Bloomsteiu case, to
compel an officer to do what the legislature
prohibits him from doing, it is suit against
the State, and if the State requires those Off
GERS to do a thing, and an injunction is OBJ
tanned to prevent from doing what the State
requires them to do, it follows that it is a
suit against the State. Ii the disposition OF
the soil of State is an attribute of sover-
eighty, it follows that she has right to dis
pose of her revenue. The State is the one
that can only provide for the settlement of
her debt, ard a suit to prevent her from do
ing this, is a suit against the State Ii, as
they admit, this is contract if consumated
between the State and the bondholders, then
to stopt contract is to stop the State.
On the constitutionality of the act | ave
to say: The act does not prevent the COM
plainants from altering or reforming the
government. The complainants can still
do this. The legislature is a coordinate
branch of the government and is presumed
to do its duty. The reasonable deduction
from the complainants' argument is, that the
act violates the constitution because it does
not violate the constitution. The courts can
only enforce the constitution when it comes
in conflict with the legislative act. 1t is the
duty of the co1rts to carry out the intent of
the legislature when it does not conflict. 1t
cannot decide upon the ri ht and expediency
by which the act was passed. And the court
must give it the construction that will enable
it to have its effect The eomplainants do not
show any right that the coupon feature post
poIies. They are by no means the people oil the
State. The coupon feature is not in this
case, this question only Is raised at the time
the bondholder presents his coupon for taxes.
Why is this feature 20 objectionable? If the
coupon feature binds the State to pay Its
debt and maintain the honor and credit, /
can see no objection. Ii by leaving the c0u-
-pUn feature out The honor and credit of the
State falls, then we maintain the feature is a
good one The bill does not charge any
fraud upon the defendant II does not spe-
officially set out who was bribed. 1t does not
give the time name or the party, who re-
ceiyed or give the bride. No one can tell
who the parties were. No issue can be
made by the bill. The charges are too gen.
eral. The court cannot look TO intrinsic
matters, and there is nothing specific. The
bill might Just as well have charged the
whole Legislature OF being bribed. The
court cannot inquire into the motive of the
legislator for voting for the bill. How far
the legislator may depart from morality the
courts have no rig ht TO inquire into.
Judge Bright supported the above argu-
ment by long list of decisions bearing d.
rectly upon the point. Suppose the Court
could inquire into the motives OF every legis-
lator, where would the thing be stopped?
Every magistrate would have a right to in
legislature could be inquired into; their de-
sire to make a record, their taking OF free
passes ON railroads; everything could then
be inquired into, thus giving instability to
the acts of the legislature. The bill is as
barren as the fig tree spoken of in the thir
teenth chapter of Luke, and the same means
has been resorted to by the complainants to
make it bear fruit.