Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1885-04-21

:
officer or tax collector Of the state is bound
to regard, but, on the contrary, is bound TO
disregard them, so we have one provision OF
the constitution set up against another, and
are asked to enforce that relating to contracts
10y regarding individual officers as the real
parties proceeded against, and ignoring the
fact that IN the matter OF receiving coupons
in payment of taxes these officers only repre-
sent the state.
THE FORCE OF AMENDMENTS.
BY this technical device it is supposed that
the eleventh amendment may be eyaded. In
my opinion this is not sound or fair lDterpre-
tation of the constitution. II the contract
clause and the eleventh amendment come into
conflict the latter has paramount force. 1t
was adopted as an amendment to the constl-
tuition. and operates as an amendment OF
every part of the constitution to which II Is at
any time found TO be repugnant. Every
amendment of the law or constitution re-
vokes, alters or adds something. It is
the last declared will of the law maker.
and has paramount force and effect The
constitution still declares that no state shall
pass any law lmpairing obligation OF contract.
| But the effect of the amendment is that even
II state should pass a law impairing the va
lldlty of It's own contract, no redress can be
had therefor in the Federal courts. If all
those who deal with a State have notice of
this fundamental condition, they know that
they must depend on the faith of the State
just as if no constitution existed, and cannot
| resort to compulsion unless the State chooses
to permit itself to be sued.
W ElGhl Ot IhE llIH AMENDMENT
Moreover, thel eeventh amendment IS not
intended as a mere jingle Of words, to be
| slurred over by cunning subtletles and arti-
| fetal methods OF Interpretation, so as to give
1t literal compliance, without regarding its
/ SUBSTANTIAL meaning and purOoso. its grave
and solemn condition eXacted by sovereign
| States for the purpose of preserving and vim
| dicatlng their sovereign right to deal with
| claims against them according to their own
! views of what may be required by
the public faith and necessities of the
body polite. We have no right, if we
| could be disposed, TO fritter away the sub
! stance of this solemn stipulation by any neat
! and skillful MANIPULATION Of its words. We
! are bound to give it its full and substantial
meaning and effect. II this litigation in ref
! erence to Virginia bonds and coupons is an
/ attempt through the Medium Of Federal
| courts to coerce the State Of Virginia into the
| fulAllment of her contracts. There is no
! question about the validity Of the taxes.
| They are admittedly due. An officer is en-
| titled to collect them. His authority
! is undisputed. Coupons are rendered in
! payment-not as money, for they have no
! quality of moneY-but as a set Off which, as is
! insisted, the State has agreed to allow. The
! taxpayer stands on this agreement and seeks
! to enforce 1t. All suits undertaken for this
/ end are in truth and reality suits against the
/ state to compel compliance with its agree
ment. The set off is nothing but a cross ac-
/ ton and can no more be enforced against the
state without its consent than direct action
can be when set offs are allowed against a
sovereign. 1t is always by virtue of some ex-
/ press statute.
Officers have no power but what the state
/ gives them. They act for and on behalf of
! the state and in no other way. TO sue them,
/ therefore, because they will not receive cOu-
/ pons IN payment, is virtually to sue the State.
/ The so'e object is to coerce the State. To say
! otherwise is to talk only for effect without re-
/ gard to the truth Of things.
/ COUPONS NOT EQUAL TO MONEY.
A tax Is due. No money is rendered. The
taxpayer only offers to set Off coupons. which
are nothing but due bills OF the State, and
i pleads the States collateral agreement to re-
| ceive them. This ia not money, and bears no
| resemblance to money. It is simply a prom
i Use. The State, for reasons Of its own, de
cllnes to comply with its agreement in the
mode and form and foTbids its officers to re-
ceive the coupons In payment Of taxes. The
/ taxpayer insists that the State shall comply
| with its agreement. All proceedings insti-
! tuted by hlm to enforce the receipt of coupons
/ or to obtain redress against a collector for not
/ receiving them, have this object alone IN view
/ to compel the State to fulfill its agreement
it is Idle to say that the proceeding Is only
/ against the officers. That is a mere pretense.
/ The real object is to cOerce the State. through
I its officers, to compel a specific performance
/ by the state Of Its agreement. 1t ia said that
/ the government does not represent the State
| when 1t does an unconstitutional act or passes
! an unconstitutional law. Whilst this may be
averred when the government of a State
| attempts to force State from its c0nstitu-
tiOnal relations with the United States and to
produce disruption of the fundamental bonds
Of national compact, and whilst in such 8
case it may be admissible TO say that the
government Of the state has exercised usurped
authority, this mode of speechis not admissi
BILE in ordinary cases Of legislation and public
administration.
A STATES REPRESENTATIVES,
A State can only act by and through its
constituted authorities, and it is represented
by them alone in all ordinary exhibitions Of
sovereign power. 1t may act wrongly. 1t
! N oil hut 70 tbof
! is not the State that acts is to make a misuse
Of terms, and tends to confound all Just dis
tinctiOns. It also tends to sedition by incul-
| eating the doctrine that the government may
! be treated andsresisted as usurpatiOn when
! ever a citizen in the exercise of his private
/ Judgment deems Its acts to be unconstitutional.
But then it will be asked: Has citizen no
redress against unconstitutional acts or laws
of a Statey Certainly he has. Whenever his
life, liberty or property is threatened, as
sailed or invaded by unconstitutional acts or
by an attempt to execute unconstitutional
laws he may defend himself IN every proper
way by habeas corpus. by defense TO prosecu-
uons, by actions brought on his behalf, by in
junction and by mandamus, but all means Of
protection and redress against unconstitu-
tional OneratiOn and exactiOn are a very diff
ierent thing from a right to coerce a state
into fulhllment OF its contracts.
AN IEDEFEAsBLE RIGHT.
One is an inuefeasible right, right which
cannot he taken away-the other Is never
right, but may or may not be conceded by the
state, and. if conceded. may he conceded on
such terms as the state chooses To impose.
This is the Grst time, we believe, since the
eleventh amendment was adopted that any
state has been cOcrccd bY judicial proceed
iuga at the suit Of individuals in Federal
courts. That this is such case seems one OF
the plainest propositions that can be ut
tered.
We have not thought st necessary or proper
10 make any remarks on the moral aspects Of
the case. III Virginia or any other state has
the DrcrOgadVe OF exemption from judicial
prosecution and OF determining her own pub
hc policy with regard 20 the mode Of redeem
ing her obligations 10 Is not for this court
when considering the question Of her consti-
tutiOnal rights. to pass IN judgment upon tho
prOprety Of her conduct ON one side or the
other.
The dissenting opinion covers cases
Nos. 5sS, $50, 1860 and s2G.
NatiOnalists On the Alert.
LONDONDERRY, April 2O.- There IS
great excitement here over the pOstingOf