Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1883-03-09
IMPORTANT DECISIONS.

On Monday last the United States Supreme
Court rendered decisions in two cases involv-
ing the power of the Judiciary to compel a
state to respect its financial obligations, and
comply with the terms Of them. One case
from Louisiana, presented clear violation
of the contract between the state and its
creditors. After issuing bonds bearing a
fixed rate of interest, and prescribing tax
for raising funds to pay the interest, the
state adopted constitution which reduced
the rate of interest, cut down the tax levy
and provided for an exchange Of the out
standing bonds for others at three-fourths
the face value of the first issues. The bond
holders sought to compel the state officers
to comply with the provisions of the law
authorizing the issue of the bonds; but the
Supreme Court held that it could not as
sumo the executive power of the state that
the officials were amenabe 10 the authority
of the state, and must obey that authority
In short that the constitution superseded
the law, previously enacted, and the execu-
tive officers Of the state were bound to en-
force it.
The other case involved the validity of
the Virginia coupon-kiler law An act of
the legislature authorized the issue of bonds
and made the coupons receivable for taxes.
subsequently the Readjuster legislature
passed law providing that these coupons
should not be received for taxes until their
.genuineness had been established by judi
cial inquiry. The suit was brought to com
pei state official to receive the coupons for
taxes as provided under the first law. The
Supreme Court denied the nandamus prayed
for, thus maintaining the constitutionalty
Of the state law.
In an able article commenting on the
above important decisions the Baltimore
Day says:
1t seems to have been good day for
States rights in the Supreme Court, and we
are not disposed to cavil at some appear
ance of rather straining that doctrine by a
tribunal which has in times past so lawless.
ly trampled 1t under foot.
"The doctrine of States rights then" we
can readily imagine its contemners replying,
means that any State may play the rascal,
repudiate its obligations To individuals, and
cheat its creditors at will" Yes, it means
just that. The preservation intact of these
sovereign powers which the States did not
surrender through the constitution To the
Federal government renders it essential that
they shall be free from liability to be dragged
into courts as cuprits or debtors, and hence
there is no remedy when they choose TO
play the rascal with their creditors This
I.. L.. 80 "a
thing discovered since the debts in question
were contracted but every reasonably we'll.
informed man, who has loaned money on
the faith and credit Of State since the
formation of the government or at least after
the adoption Of the eleventh amendment to
the constitution of the United States in
1898, has understood the exact risk he has
taken, and II he has made mistake he has
no right now TO come clamoring before the
people of the State TO change their form Of
government TO enable him TO escape the
consequences of his error Of judgment. We
join with all such indignant citizens in their
contempt for a State which, having borrow
cd money ION honor"--for every State debt
is simply debt Of honor-in this fashion,
will repudiate its obligation. We go further
and extend our contempt TO the citizens Of
those States who join in such action, and
account them one and all base and dis
hopored men. We should recognize it also
as justand proper if forever after such States
should never be able TO borrow another cent
in case of direct need, and IL all men should
refuse TO trust any of their citizens who could
not prove conclusive his innocence OF COM
plicity in the act Of reputation; but we do
not admit that the cheated creditors who
loaned their money on honor have any
equitable claim on Congress or the courts
for action that would weaken the hold Of
honest States on their rights in order that
the rascally States may be punished OF
forced TO disgorge, and hence we rejoice
that the Supreme Court has laid down the |
law with such explicitness, and we are ut
terly opposed TO all attempts ~ abolish |
the eleventh amendment TO the consttu- |
ton 50 as to enable men to safely loan
money TO States In the future.
They have, without law, simpler rem
edy, and that is not to lend the money. II |
they choose 70 do 50 it must be at their own |
risk and upon their individual judgment as |
N the value Of that faith and honor on |
which alone they rely for its return. What |
10 true of the States of this Union Is true of |
all the States Of the world. Their good |
faith and honor are the only proper depend
ence for their creditors, and IL these fail |
there is no justice in lending the arm aments |
II other States 70 disappointed creditors TO |
be used as bloody collecting agents for debts |
which the greed Of gaia eapsed them 10 |
allow men or States TO contract without due |
security If this be the doctrine generally |
accepted capitalists may reply, "Very few |
governments will be able to borrow money"
81 be il. The world will be pone the worse
of for that. l