Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1885-04-22
dhe faufaster 1,,telli9enfer.
LANCASTER, APRIL ., 1855.
che Ground of the peeIsIon.

che Ground Of the Decision.
Thedecision of the supreme court in the
Viuri,ia bond cases is based upon its de-
termination that the legislation of the
state. which required the refusal by the
tax collectors of the coupons of the state
bonds that the state had expressly agreed
to redive in payment of taxes when it is
sued The bonds, was legislation that vio- |
lated The contract entered into, and was
therefre void because of the prohibition,
contained in the United States cOnstitu-
tion, d legislation impairing contracts.
Tbeminority of the supreme court admit
that tie Virginia legislation was obnoxious
to thi} provision of the federal cOnstitu-
ton ;put they declare that to give the
bondIplders redress by compelling the tax
collectors to receive the coupons of the
stated bonds rs money, would violate
anotl1r provision of the federal constitu-
ton, Shich prohibits suits being brought
agaimt states to enforce their agreements.
As this feature of the constitution is con-
tanned in an amendment to it, we under
stand the minority decision to hold that it
should control contradictory provision
In the original instrument. Why it should
do 20 is not made clear. 1t would seem that
all the provisions of the constitution and its
amendments are of like validity, and
that when they contradict one another and
cannot be reconcled, the choice between
them is left to individual preference.
And to this condition the minority OF
the court seems to have come. They pre-.
fer to construe the fundamental law as for
bidding any compulsion upon state in the
feaeSai CO art to secure the nay"'"st ~ ~
debit They lake this choice prObabl!
because it chimes in with their state right
predictions. But though, as Democrats
our devotion to the doctrine Of state right
Is strong, we discover nothing in that doc
trine, sOundly interpreted, to leav
a state at liberty to repudiate he
Just contracts, when there is op
por.uhity furnished to determine tn
justnass of such contracts in the fedora
courts, and to provide lawful redress 70
the aggrieved creditor. II would be Sc
we're Blow to the doctrine of state rights, j
undei it state may violate her plight
ed faith, and if no remedy may be found 70
90 gross awrong, that casts so great stigm
uponthe fame and credit of the nation, o
which the states are the parts.
The majority of the supreme court, in TN
very forcble opinion in which it has deci
ded that Virginia tax collectors must re
ceivef state coupons as money, has fun
nishdl very sufficient means Of recOncil
ing tie provisions of the constitution whcl
the minority of the court find to he con
flictiig. 1t is decided that the tax collectO
is not the state and that suit against hin
is not a suit against the state, nOtwitt
standing that he encountered the suit il
obedience to an act of the states legisla
ture. That legislation is not law, tn
court decides, because 1t is void, as contra
vening the federal constitution. Thestat
can PASS no law that subverts contract
and every attempt to do SO simply result
in p0yerless enactments that can have n
force in protecting those who act unde
them. yirginia's void laws cannot protec
her tex collectors.
In this thorough way the supreme cour
decision emasculates state legislation
violative of contracts, without runnin
cOuntr to the mandate that state ma
not be sued. The minority of the cour
say that this is subterfuge, inasmuch a
the t tx collector Is state Office and act
for it'll which is true enough as it is ais
undeiiable that the state is earnestly ben
ON rbudiating the debt it has promise
to pay. 1t is not denied on any hand tina
the cieditors of Virginia are seeking
force hn unwilling state to meets its obi
cations. The supreme court decision tel
them that they can do it whenever tn
state y required TO employ an agent to d
some bet to realize her claim for taxes OF
Of the property of a citizen who has pro-
fered to pay his taxes in coupons of th
state bonds. That agent is pOwerless
lay hi, hands on any other property. Tl
agent paralyzed, and::the state likewise
but it done according to the law and tn
cOnsti tion, the supreme court says, an
80, TOD Says common sense.
Theleffect of the decision In Virginia :.
expected to be very favorable to Malone
attempt to recover his power. He propose
to run for governor upon a repudatio
PLATFORM. As he will have to repudiai
the sui'reme court to repudiate the obno'
ions coupons, he enters upon serious III
dertaking, 1t Is not likely that the time
ripe for revolution, and Mshone snot IL
man non Virginia the state to give ii
needed weight to such a movement.
- -