The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-01-23
Enlmond gispatth.
Observation-Disclosures 20, 1888



The warscntcn fedex makes good
polnt In the case OF Mcssrs. Powers and
BAYLEss, judges OF election at Lbyds. 10
Essex county, who were recently indictee
by grand Jury Of the United StAies co'ni
sitting In Alexandria for refusing to rece-y'
niso the tnxSeceipts 0! one OF Auditor AZ
LgS's tax-oollectors
The Tnds1 says:
"The validity Of such receipts Is cues
aioped by many, and among these some OF
the most astutc OF the legal profession
That other judrs Of election SHOULD have
recognized similar receipts does MT con-
Wet these two refusing to do so OF con-
spiracy 10 deprive qualified ciazeh OF Di'
vote. and subject them TO pains au1 penal
ties: for the question lying Of the founda'
fion of these prosecutions has never Deen
sdjudicated, and was an open ore for The
two Judges 10 pass upon under tie solemn
lies OF their oath OF office.
"Thc authority of the Auditor TO appoint
special tax-coiectors Of the character fig
ufing In the late or preceding elections
was not settled by the discussion between
the Dispatch and Mr.. Massey, Tor the press
n not the proper forum for an authoritative
settlement OF legal questions.
"Inthese two prosecutions the fcdera
Court assumes the right to give law by it'
construction 10 the StSte, and TO that DOUBT
full construction apply Statutes which ap
peal to the cupidity OF informer aid prose
cution and are disgrace TO legislation"
In Virgina-cases which do not involve
Federal question or el9ment, the supreme
Court Of the United States takes its Law
from the Supreme Court Of Appeals OF VIZ
ginia. Again: The Supreme Court OF too
United States Is no, allowed to assume
jurisdiction In cases which have no surf
element IN them. For example, the deci
sion ~ The Supreme Court OF Appeals o.
yirginIa in the BURKs-IIISToN case wa:
final. There was no appeal, and could b'
no appeal, In such o case, because 1t lacked
the. Federal element. 1T would be useless
IL itceuld be done, to take TO the Supreme
Court OF the United States case in which
this tatter court would take the decision OF
Virginia's highest court as conclusive o.
the.questons involved in that case.
Now, then, when we remember that 1t is
puTe1Y Il Stsitc qutStiou NHitn 0ou'u h"1 w
taken Ito the Supreme Court OF the United
States for final decision whether the tax-re-
ceipts issued by the Auditors tax-coliect-
ors are or are not vSiid, 1t will be seen at
once that in indicting Messrs. POWERS and
BAYLEss the United States Court at Alex
andria assumed the question at issue to
have been authoritatiyely decided in favor
OF the collectors. The iade1, therefore,
makes good point; for neither Judge
HUGHES nor Judge BOND nor even the SUI
preme Court OF the United States has the
right TO decide the very question involved
In the case, unless, as we have said, it is a
case in which there is Federal element.
II is not for the Federal courts to decide
what is nDIawful under the laws Of Vir-
ginia, nor what is unconstitutional under
the Constitution Of Virginia. The Ques-
ton of unlawfrlness or unconslitutionalry
must first be decided by the State courts,
and then il the Federal laws can come in
and prnish such offences (in congress
siopal eleciiop) 1t is time enough for the
United States courts to act.