The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-03-07
The Coupon Decision.


The Supreme Court OF the United States
decided on Monday last that although one
state has under the Federal Constitution
the tight TO sue another II there Inc sufli-
cient cause, yet one State cannot be sued
by another as the assignee OF any private
person; and that, therefore, the state OF
Louisiana could not be sued by the State OF
New York as the assignee OF certain bond
holders who, IN order 70 evade constitu-
tional provision, had nomnaiIy assigned
their bonds to the State OF New York.
The Supreme Court decided in that case
only the constitutional question involved.
Its decision did not touch the question Of
honesty Involved.
So also as 10 decision rendered on Mon
dsy in another Louisiana case. The SUI
prcme Court did not decide that it was
honest 10 take money collected for one pur-
nose and use II for another, or money
pledged to the payment OF debt and use
II to defray the ordinary expenses OF gov
eminent, but merely that the State had
control OF her own funds. The court
had nothing to do with any other ques-
lions.
In both cases the decisions were no doubt
correct. We have no fault TO find with
them. The first one Is In the line OF the
argument which we have used against the
ratification Of any amendment to the Fede-
raj Constitution authorizing suits 10 DC
brought against States by private persons.
But the Supreme Court, we repeat, decided
nothing rs to the honesty OF the action OF
the Legislature Of louisiana.
II one Virginan were to sue another
Virgnian In Federal court, and the case
were to go up to the Supreme Court OF the
United States, supposing 1t possible that
such ease could be got into the courts,
the Supreme Court would be compelled TO
decide that one Virginian had no right to
sue another in the Federal courts, just as
II decided that New York had as assignee
no right TO sue Louisiana. The question
of honesty would not arise in such case
at all. The one Virginian might justly
owe the money sued for, and the other Vir-
gilman might freely acknowledge that he
owed 1t, and yet all the same would the
Supreme Court OF the United States be
obliged TO decide that one Virginian can
not sue another for debt in the Federal
courts.
We have not read the full opinion OF
the Supreme Court OF the United States In
the coupon-kilIing case from Virginia, but
we have no doubt that the decision in that
case was based upon grounds somewhat
like those underlying the other decisions
rendered the same day. We are sure that
that high tribunal did not decide, nor say |
in its opinion, that il was honest for the |
State OF Virginia to refuse to receive
for taxes coupons which her Le-
gislature, Governor. and highest court. |
bad all bound her, as far as their action
could bind her, 0bese last are now i'm
portant qualifying wOrds.) TO receive for
all debts, demands, taxes, &C., &C., due
the State The decision simply declares
the right Of the State to control her own
fundsN 1t says nothing as to moral obi
cations. 1t merely says that the State is
under no legal obligation to receive cou-
pons for taxes. Itdecides all the points Of |
constitutional law involved, and properly |
leaves all other questions for the decision
or non-decision OF the world at large.
1t Is fortunate for the State that this de-
cision docs not proceed from her own
courts. II il had come from them, il would
have subjected her to many taunts which
she will now escape.
But although the Supreme Court Of the
United States did not undertake to decide
any question Of honesty involved in the
coupon-killing act, yetit did decide in SUBJ
stance or effect that the Legislature Of 1871
exceeded its powers in promising to re- ,
ceive coupons for taxes, &c. This is,
pounded and expounded by its highest
judicial tribunal.
Let us, therefore, not trouble ourselves
about the questions which the court did
not decide, but let US as loyal citizens ac-
cept the decision as rendered as Il final set
Element Of questions which we learned too
late ought not to have been allowed nor
made to divide the Democratic party OF
Virginia. As the Supreme Court has de-
cided that the promise of 1871 is not bind
ing in law, it is not for the Democrats to
go on contending that it is binding in
morals. They may think what they
please as to that matter. But there
is no longer any necessity for, nor
would there be any wisdom in, raising
again the question Of honesty. The Read
juster Democrats who are Democrats in
national politics are not going TO concede
that they favored a dishonest policy; but
they are willing to drop that question. The
question is settled. Don't try to unset
tie it. You can't unsettle it. There
fore, let 1t alone. II the Readiust-
ers may claim that the Supreme Court
did not decide their readjustment schemes
to be dishonest, we may claim that 1t did
not decide them to be honest. Again, then,
we may say, let the debt Of Virginia, and
all the disturbing questions which have
grown out Of 1t, be consigned to the tomb
of the Capulets.
-------z----------------
Unnecessarily Alarmed.
A London telegram makes the announce