The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-06-01
A State Sued by Her own Citizens.

| Mr., ROYAIL has sent Us the following
communication, which as matter OF cour'
tesy and justice 20 him we publish-no'
because 1t throws any light upon the ques'
ton al issue between him and us. AS
coming from trained lawyer, IL Is the
most heterodox production we ever read
1t needs no reply from us. 1t is so far
wrong that il carries its own answer along
with il. That at least is our opinion. II
the case ever gets TO the Supreme Court oil
the United States. Mr.. ROYAL will find
out that we were right.
To The Editor Of the Dispatch
VIII YOU pardon me for a brief word In reply 10
your Article OF to-day? The subject IS one OF as
much importance as can wen e ,sn",nn "'
| thInk yont article contains faliScy, which Is
the very cornerstone Of your argument. You as
scrt that before the eleventh amendment citizen
of New ork mi ght sue Virginia, but that citizen
of virginia cou not sue her. NOV, right here IN
SYST that YOU are wrong insist thst neiore i',e
for n citizen of Virginia 10 sue virginia ~ ne cCutd
| hare found a court hGcfHg JurtSdttton Of hSr,
and that II would have been possible before thS
| eleventh amendment 10 create court with turis.
dletiOn over her as 10 certain queTtOnS-t0 toH
| 1uestf0ns arising under The Constitution or tdaoS
drtregttes Of me United Sfg xe, yor, sued r..
state Of Georgia IN The Supreme Court OF
ne United states by virtue of the provision
of the Constitution which extends the lu-
rIsiiction Of that court to controversies
between state and citizens of another
state There was no act OF Congress men under
by virtue of the provision Of the Constitution
Itself. As that provision gave jurisdiction over
suits between state ana dilzcns OF announcer
state. OF course a citizen Of Virginia could not
then have sued Virginia under IL, aud as there was
then no act Of Congress under which he coald
lrave sued he could not have ,ued her AZ all Hut
the Constitution not only extended the Judicial
power 10 controversies between state ana III
zens OF another tate, giving TO the supreme
Court original rs well as appellate jurisdiction in
such cases but II extended It as well TO ALL cases
arising under the Constitution. putting no
limitation whatever upon the extent OF the power
If the case arose under the COnsti utlOn, and with
ont regard TO the parties TO the Therefore,
IT, before the eleventh amendment, ihers h%u byen
an act of Congress extending tie luI 'sIN tiu en-
the es%to si ~ Ga, G&se$ ritsen Of Virginia
hight have brought suit that arose under the
Constitution against the Stale OF Virginia rs well
~ against John Jones.
Now repeat what said yesterday: This Ian
guage of The Constitution has been many times
con ,truPd by the supreme Court. beginning with
Judge M5rshall's gIcat Judgment in COhens rS.
Virginia. IL has been invariably held that case
arises under the Constitution whenever IL Is ne
cessarY To cOnStrue the Constitution in order 20
give Judgment in the case Where Is the provision
OF the Constitution which says that This shall not
party? II must bc brought IN Nero, If it gets there
az o.. by construction, and by a construction
which is at war with the language of the COnst.
tuition and with IT'S spirit Ihes trainers of the
Constitution intended that IL should he supreme
and that states as well as individuals should be
compelled tO abide by il. Let State stay inside
its traces aud she may DO what she Will If she
kicks out, IL was intended that the judiciary should
whip her back Just as II would whip any one else
back.
Don't YOU think The Democrat party has enough
TO carry without burdening itself with effort TO
repeal The postwar legislation intended 10 secure
itizens in their constitutional rights?
WILLIhM l.. ROYALL.