The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-03-27
The Debt Question, Again.

To the Editor of the Dispatch:
Don't be alarmed. Only word. shan't
hurt you.
read some days ago in the Dispatch an
abstract OF the opinions OF Chief-Justice
Waite and Justice Field in the celebrated
case Of Antoni rs. Greenhow. have since
seen In the Richmond State the opinion OF
Justice Mathews I'm the same case, to which
beg leave to call the attention OF yourself
and your readers. Judge Mathews says:
Il concur in the judgment OF the court,
but prefer to rest the decision upon a
ground different from that on which it is
placed in its opinion. / agree that the
State OF Virginia. bv the act Of 1871, enter
ed into a valid contract with the holders Of
its bonds to receive their coupons i'm pay
ment OF taxes, aud that any subsequent
statute which denies this right is breach
OF its contract and violation of the Con-
stitution OF the United States. BIT for a
breach of its contract by State no remedy
Is prouided bythe Constitution cfthe United
States against the State itself; and a. suit
to compel the officers Of a State to do the
acts which constitute performance OF its
contract by the State is suit against the
State itself.
"If the State furnishes remedy by pro-
cess against itself or its officers that process
may be pursued, because IL has consented
to submit itself 10 that extent to the juraS-
diction OF the courts but If ii chooses to
,oifhdrd,o us consent 6y repeal of all
remedies tits restored to the imnausity from
suit uhich belongs TO ii as a political com.
munity, responsible in that particular TO no
superior"
The italics are mine, but in other re-
spects l give the exact words OF Judge
Mathews as find them reported in the
State newspaper. The Washington cor
respondent Of the State, in communicating
the opinion Of Judge Mathews to that pa
per. says that 1t was expressly concurred
in by Mr.. Justice Bradley and Mr.. Justice
Gray; that 1t was predicted by weIl-in-
formed persons in Washington "that any
future case that may arise will be adjudi-
Gated upon the principles laid down In
that decision"
Here we have three Of the justices of the
Supreme Court who have gone to the ex-
tent OF declaring that a State may enter
into valid contract with her citizens. ex-
pressly providing in said contract the rem.
edies by which 1t may be enforced in the
event Of its violation by the State. vet that
said State, by virtue OF Its sovereign power
"as political community" may thereaf-
ter repeal all the remedies thus provided.
and shall DO responsible In that particu.
lar TO no SUPERIOR" In other werds. ac-
cording to the opinions of these three ius.
tiees, the citizen who enters into contract
with the State has no security for its per-
Torrance, except the honesty and good
faith OF the State.
My object Is merely to call the attention
OF the people to the position taken by three
Of the judges OF the highest court In the
land. shall not undertake to contrOyert
the soundness OF their opinion. II NAV he
good law. 1t would be presumptuous in
me TO say otherwise. -.
But 1t may not be amiss, In view Of the
opinion OF these three justices, and In view
also Of the opinion Of Chiei-Justice Wsite.
sustained, ~ It was, by Q majority OF the
court 70 let the people see how slight the
probability 10 that the Supreme Court win
change Its decision In any future contro-
yersy that may arise IN reference to the
state debt. Is It not probable, with the
lights now before u, that the decision Of |
this court In the event Of future litiva- |
lion, VIII be sim more unfavorable, II Dos |
'lble, to the boddholdersP IL looks 80 to
ne. M y . PAX.