The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1885-05-07
THE VIRGINIA pEnr DECISION.

a |
on the critical point inyolv-
ed, and the opinion prevails that 1t
will again be before the court. The |
decision reached was thaG of a bare |
of the court-Field of Cali |
fornia, Harlan Of Kentucky, Woods |
of Georgia, Matthews of Ohio and |
BlatchfCrd Of New York the MAORI
~, and Chief Justice Waite of
Ohio, Miller of Iowa, Bradley of New
Jersey and Gray of Massachusetts,
the minority. The four dissenting
justices are all from Northern States
and are all Republicans, willie the
majority is composed of four Republi-
cans and one Democrat, who, howev-
err, claimed to be Il Republican when
appointed by Mr.. Lincoln. Two of
the majority, too, are from Southern
States. Here is evidence, then, that
the question of State sovereignty, in
volved in the case, was not d party
one; four Republicans voted one way,
and four the other, and Field, who
may be called Il Democrat, voted
VITA the majority. The case involves
questions of deep interest 10 the peo-
pie Of the entire Union. The suits
were against the tax collectors of the
State Of Virginia, and the decis-
| ion holds TO exempt them from the
constitutional prohibition forbidding
suits to be brought against State.
But the dissentients argue that the
suits are in substance and virtue
against the State itself; they act uI-
der a law of the State; the revenue
they collect is the revenue of the
State; in refusing to accept in
terest coupons for taxes they ar
simply obeying the order Of
the State; and it is not they
but the State that is affected by thu
decision. In the dissenting
opinion it is said: Gal
this litigation in reference to the Vir
ginia bonds and coupons is an at
tempt, through the medium of tn,
Federal Courts, to coerce the State O
Virginia into the fuliilment of he
contracts. The officers have no pow
er but what the State gives them
They act for and on behalf OF tn
State, and in no other way. TO SUI
them, therefore, because they will no
receive the coupons in payment,
virtually to sue the State. The sole oil
ject is to coerce the State. To sd
otherwise is to talk only for effec
without regard to the truth Of tn
thing" The question before the Cour
, Their, was not whether a State ma
: repudiate it's obligations, but whethe
a federal court may force state t
pay even its just debts, to respect it
lcontracts, or not. This is the make
issue, and it is a vital one. If the de
t cision remain in force, it will be fuI
, ther curtailment of State rights, an u1
: expected enlargement of federal pow
9 er The Constitution of the Unite
D States Gle arly torbidS the States c
the Union to pass laws impairiDg tn
Vandity of contracts The elevent
amendment debars the United State
courts from entertaining suit
brought against a State by an
divldual sutton. and the question raj:
ed is, does the amendment obliteratt
this proposition, Oh can redres
be secured by suing tn
agent of the State where the Stat
may not be sued. The latter metho
Y of procedure for redress of wrongs b
= State has been adjudged constitU
| tional by the act of the court in til
t Virginia case. The minority opinio
seems to be much stronger than thu
of the majority. The principle of tt
. majority opinion put into full fore
would enable a State to i'm
pose unjust duties, to decla1
: war, to do almost anything in fact pr
= hibited by the constitution, so long {
the rights of individuals only are a.
fected. The Court makes the elevent
amendment greater than the constitl
ton itself, wipes out nearly all the re
: strictioDS as to the powers of Statt
5 leaving as the only probable redre
s suits against State officials