The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-06-05
Hear Roth Sides.

We regard the question discussed in the
following communication as not only in
teresting but important. Mr.. RoYALL
presents his side OF the question with
both fairness and ability. He Is wrong,
we think but he will never surrender to
any other tribunal than the Supreme Court
OF the United States:
To the Editor Of the Dispatch:
Your correspondent, writing yesterday over the
rule hal state cannei be sned except by her
consent and then declares that there Is positively
no exception 10 this rule. How does he prove ~ i!
contributions 10 The Federalists, written before
the Government of the United states was organ
ized Now, Notwithstanding The opinions OF Mr.
Hamilton, the supreme Court OF the United states
several years after those opinions were published
decided, In the case of Chisholm vs. The safe OF
hat the states Of this Union ,oere liable TO sui
without their own consent. Your correspondent
SAYS that Mr.. Hamlton's opinions show that me
Supreme Court was hagrantiy wrong" 1 might
reply that the supreme Courts decision shows that
MIR Hamilton's opinions were nagrantly wrong
whether theoretically so or not certainly so as
matter OF fact. Now, by which are the courts OF
The United states to he guided-by Mr.. Hamillon's
opinions, theoretically right, or bv the supreme
Courts decisions, actually the law?
Unless 10 can be shown that the decision In
Chisholm u.s. Georgia was not intended 10 declare
nat citizen OF Virginia could sue Virginia.
then there is 10 question open for discussion; i
submit that this cannot be shown. 1 submit that
every argument used by the Supreme Court 10
proye that citizen of New York could sue Vir-
gns s just peru ent 70 snow dna ba ScfoTe the
eleventh amendment citizen OF New YORK ana
a citizen of Virginia stood upon exactly the same
footing In this respect with the single exception
that the citizen Of New York had been provided
with a forum in which to bring his suit while The
citizen Of Virginia was without 4 forum until me
nj. L.. rsA htnI.x
Supreme Court on the day of its last adtou' nment
touches this matter very nearly. and by analogy,
II not actually, sustaius Judge Hughes's position.
1 speSk Of the case or Ames rs. Kansas. In mat
case the State Of Kansas commenced proceedings
against a corporation OF her own creation 10 takc
away its charter. The corporation insisted that
It's charter could not be taken from IL because III
hal acquired certain rights under an act OF Con-
gress OF which it would be deprived IL lis charter
were taken from IL, and II removed inc case TOT
trial to the United States Court on the ground that
il " arose under law of The United states"
The state OF Kansas insisted that as the Consul
.on of s cases in Which State was party this
was an exclusive grant of jurisdiction To the SUI
preme Court, and put IL beyond the power OF Con-
grees to confer jurisdiction upon the Circun
Courts of a case In which a State was party. The
court pronounced against this contention. Then,
after showing that the act of 1879 had under
taken TO confer jurisdiction on the Circuit Courts
OF ALI cases arising under the Constitution or laws
Of the United States and that IL the Constitution
or a law of the United States was 20 be construed
in the case that case did arise under the Constitu
ton or the law of the United States the Chief JUS
tice, delivering the opinion OF tire court, says:
s The only question we have to consider is, there
fore, whether suits cognizabie In the courts or
the United States ON account of the nature or the
controversy, and which need moi be brought orig.
inally in the Supreme Court. NAV now be br0ught
in OF removed TO the Circuit Courts without regard
TO the parties. All admit that the act does give
the requisite jurisdiction In suits where state Us
not q party. SO that the real question Is whether
the Consultation exempts the States from its opera
tion." q. so.. nj,
and 10 directs the Circuit Court of the United states
to try the case, Notwithstanding IL ata state was
party =, ,r,,,o:, ,ho
state brought the suit But the argument Is that
II the case " arises under the Constitution " the
character Of the parties Is OF no consequence IL
the right of the citizen 20 sue the state II his case
arise under the Constitutions"
Ihope the reader (if should be fortunate enough
IN secure a readerl will understand just exactly
what kind of suits IL Is claimed can be brought
against q state. Ii Is not clnmed That cluLeh
citizen. IL Is only claimed that he may sue MS
state IL his case "arises under the Constitutions
law or treaty Of the United states that Is that
N the Constitution, law, or treaty OF the United
states gives him right, and his state deprlves
him Of that right, he may apply TO Untea STATES
court to get his rignt 20 MN f the nned
states has power to enforce the provisions OF the
Constitution And If It has no such power, Of
what value is 1t? Is 1t anything more than Gov
eminent of paper If II has not this powerT
The truth rs that q degree Of importance is at
tached 10 the theory that State cannot be sued
without her own consent that Il Is not entitled To
at this day and in republic. The theory u =
relic Of feudal barbarisin. When IT originated
the siug claimed that he was made of different
timber from what other men were made OF. lie
claimed prerogatives ano PRIVILEGES that 10 other
man had He had his rights by divine appoint
ment. while common men got theirs the best way
they could. lie refused therefore IL he surd. be-
cause he would MOI admi. that any man Stool
nnon footing as high rs his. But ia republic
there arc no privileged persons. All stand on an
equal footing and The republic is not Ing bat IN
adrreeation Of persons. each one Of which is a.
good as every other one If one If them does me
4 wrong he shall he made 10 do me justice In the
courts. Why should the aggregate of them be al
| lowed TO do me wrong which no single one would
! be allowed 10 do me? What is this but
| !. The good old rule, that excellent plan.
That he may take who has the power and he
may keep who cam
| WILLIAM l.. RoYALL.