Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-03-20
VIRGINIA IN WASHINGTON.
ABoUr THE couPoy CASES.
,ya,a They WIN Ne Rsaehed-rhe Three
a....T hx Csresxi-- mr.. Keyalrs Thesgy,

Especial from star Correspondent OF the
Dispa,oh.l
WASHINGTON March 10. Tho Nir-
cinis debt cases, il is now supposed.
viii not be reached until Monday, and
IL the Courts opinions on that day are
very long probably not until Tuesday.
The Court granted additional time
for the argument of the Chesapeake
and Ohio West Virginia case, and II
was only concluded to-day, and case
iuierenes between that and those OF
Virginia. Our counsel have been IN
daily attendance at the courtroom,
and a great many Nirginians are here
to hear the argument. Some OF these
will 90 home this evening and return
next week.
Tic Court will allow five days for
the argument, so that Virginia will be
before il all Of next week.
THE ORDER.
There arc three groups Of cases viz !:
| The Baltimore and Ohio; 2, Those
Of Mr.. Royal 3, The Parsons case.
In the first the counsel are For the
State Of Virginia, Attorney-Gcneral
Blair. United States Attorney-General
Garlsnd lin his private capacity, and
Hon. X. T.. Merrick : for the railroad
company, Hon. Hugh w. Shelley and
Mr.. Cowen, the regular counsel Of the
company.
IN the Royal cases the same counsel
will appear for the State. Mr.. Royal
has associated with him General Wager
Swayne, Ex-Governor Chamberlain, OF
south Carolina, and Hon. w. NJ.
Eyaris. Mr.. Royal will open Mr..
Evarts will close for that side.
In the Parsons case Virginia is rep
resented by Attorncy-General Blair
and Hon. Waller r. Staples. Opposing
counsel are Colonel X. l.. Maury and
Ex-Governor Chamberlain and General
Swayne.
PERSONAL.
Mr.. Royal, with Characteristic chival-
~. has written TO United States Attor-
ney- General Garland, expressing the
hope that no tciH appear for Virginia.
This offsets the letter in which the at
tcntion of the President was called TO
the fact that it would be improper for
Mr.. Garland to appear for Virginia, in
aSmuch as the United States Indian
trust fund owns certain bonds of Vir-
ginia. Mr.. Garland is prepared to argue,
~ his share Of the work. the STABILITY
Of State" and hc has never minated
to his associates in the case that he felt
any embarrassment in his position. lie
~ great lawyer, and he has a great
question 10 discuss.
Judge Shipman is here, and has been
ior some days, waiting to argue case
before the Supreme Court. Some
months ago ne broke his left arm in
tall, and he carries it in sling yet.
His face shows that lac has suffered
much pain. He has said that if he had
known that the Virginia cases were to
have been delayed as long as they are
ia be--until next week he would not
have declined to argue them. His with
drswal WAS wholly because he felt that
hc would be too unwell to prepare for
them by the 10th the date for which
they were first fixed for hearing. He,
like a good many other lawyers who
have been here on the ground a good
while, waiting for cases to be reached,
wishes that he had informed himself
more accurately about the prospects
before he left home.
| have never heard why Judge Camp
hell got out Of our cases.
THE GREAT QUESTION.
The main question IN all our cases is
whether the suits now pending are not
suits against the State, and
IN which she is substantially the party.
I am told that the decisions Of the Su-
preme Court of the United States on
this point are involved ia doubt and
obscurity. The Court itself has said
that it is difficult to reconcile its own
decisions on this subject. The more
recent decisions Of the Court, however,
show a tendency to retrace its steps in
regard to the stability of the States
before the Federal courts, and counsel
will press upon the Court that now is
favorable opportunity to place its de-
ci>ionS upon clear, solid, and just
foundations which shall secure the
rights of the State under the eleventh
amendment. Our counsel confidently
believe that the majority of the Court
will he found TO sustain their PROPOSE
ton that these are suits against the
State of Virginia and can't be main
tanned. But whatever may be the de-
cision on that point, they will insist
that the decision OF the Supreme Court
in Antoni rs. Greenhow has practically
settled one Of the main questions arising
in the present eases. Some of these
cases may-and probably will-go of
va preliminary thNotiV"' Va .l"ii'N'N Wv"
and other technical grounds.
MIR. RoYALL'S THEORY.
Mr.. Royals theory upon which he
has built up all the litigation that he
has instituted since the decision of the
supreme Court in Antoni rs. Greenhow
il that a tender by a taxpayer Of
coupon which is really the States cou-
pom pays and eXtingniShes the tax, so
tha; the collector will be cujoincd from
levy;pg on the taxpayer property
afler such tender, or will he responsible
TO him for damages if he does levy after
such tender. lie insists that there l.
nothing in the deoiSion OF the Supreme
Court in conflict with this proposition, but
that, on thecOntrary. its decision directly
il. He has five cases here
this question in one form and
another. Some Of them also present
rlher important Questions-aS. for in
stance, whether the State can deprive II
taxpayer Of a right TO sue a collector
for trespass in lcyying on his property
Alter he has rendered coupons in pay
neat Of them, which the Legislature
asst spring attempted to 10. In Mr..
Royals five cases the taxpayers are
appellants. These will be heard to-
Il