Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-03-26

ny n NUT NNdiuNt tit Ctatc, Duk nc
ssid that everything Of record in these
cases shows that they are really cases
against the State Of Virginia. Mr.. Gar
land took the further ground in his ar
gument that even should this court give
Judgment in favor Of the coupon-holders,
relief for those parties cannot come eX-
cept through the action Of the State
Legislature. He said on this point
You (the other side) may get your
Judgment against the State, but you
cshnot seize her property and sell it
at public auction TO pay this Judgment.
and farther along the bondholders Of
ihe State of Virginia who took the
bends upon the good faith Of the State
must still depend upon the good faith
of the State. In conclusion, he said
that ne would not discuss the morality
og the question. lie had simply pre-
seated the law. and that. he said, is all
that this court has 10 deal with.
SENATOR EvARTs.
senator Eyarts. IN opening his argu-
meat, denied tina, these are suits against
The State Of Virginia. The record, he
Said, shows that the parties TO these
suits are citizens Of the United
States, and that they are also citi-
zens Of Virginia. This court, he
said. has jurisdiction Of these per-
sons, and the laws protect and vindi-
cate the rights Of individuals against
ircspass. There is. he said, no dispute
~ TO the plaintiffs in these cases hav-
ing had their rights. and no dispute
that those rights have been endan-
geied. This being the case, the
question arises. he said, whether
there can be AN admitted wrong
an admitted evasion Of the rights Of
individuals, and no remedy. One pro-
vision Of the Constitution of the United
States. he said. was in existence at the
time these securities were issued, as II
l. in existence nOw-that whatever
contract is entered into cannot he i'm
paired by subsequent legislation. Con-
tluuing in this line. he said that when
the rights Of parties under a contract
are alleged to have been invaded by any
law regulating. repeating, or qualifying
contract, there Is but one question for
the court. This question, he said, is
not whether the State has any power
(because if il is All iniractlon Of the
Constitution it has no power in the
nremiseS) but Is that law an impair
mcnt of the obligations Of a contract:
The ordinance of the Constitution is
not. ne said, that the obligations Of
contract shall not be materially I'M
pared. not that they shall not be I'M
paired in substance or in form; II Is
that they shall not he impaired at all.
lie contended that the State having
given to the coupons the faculty Of pay
ing, 10 the amount Of their face value,
all debts due the State, when the tax
payer has rendered his coupons in pay
ment Of taxes he has discharged his
debt. Should the State say to him
after that, ave will treat YOU a. a
delinquent taxpayer unless you pay
YOUR taxes in gold OF silver" lac can
say. said Mr.. KyartS, You cannot.
That would be trespaSs upon my
rights" Pursuing this question of
trc>pass further. Mr.. Evarts said The
point We stand upon here is that we
have been singled out by the laws of
Virginia that j, has extended It's pro-
lection over the people of Virginia, but
has prescribed the bondholder. He
II denounced. The courts are closed
against him the power Of protecting his
property has been taken away from him.
He asked, "ls not that an impairment
Of the obligation Of the bondholderS'
contract" The very bottom and
scope Of the legislation Of Virginia since
1852 is. be said. absolute prescription
cf the payment of these coupons. All
over these lawS, he said, Is written = null
LITIGATION Of coupons, qualification Of cen
tract. notification Of debt, nullitica-
ton Of the power Of the court and the
Government and the Constitution of
The United States" He said that lac
would not be putting IT too strongly il
he said that the whole legislation OF
The state on the subject of those cOu-
pons and their owners announced the
the ayowed purpose of making the
holder OF coupons an outlaw for hold
ina them. An outlaw. he said, Is one
" 40 is put out OF the protection and aid
of law, and that. he said. is what
has been done TO the csupon-holders. a.
lar rs legislation Of the State could do
ii. lie disputed the assertions Of the
other side that the power is not in the
Federal courts 10 enforce the execution
81 their judgment If II be against the
state. II the eleventh amendment
means that they cannot enforce such 1
INDICTMENT what. then, he asked, becomes /
Of tie great framework of the ConstItu- }
ton, its power to protect individuals IN 1
their rights: lie pointed to history to /
show that the Interpretation Of the I
Constitution 10y thus oour, mnst be re-
scsaiEed by the States. " Peace" he Z
,sid. has always been preserved when
the mandates of this court were obeyed I
~ law, and the power of the Union .
over aud against tlie power and law OF I
y STATE" Tie SAID that there is no fear I
tbs. force will have 10 be resorted I
10 10 compel the obedience of the State I
TO the mandate Of this court, aud 4
closed by calling attention TO the Viz
e.iis maxim. "obediencs TO law; re- I
aistsnce to force.
- BRows ALIENS CASE.
Upon the conclusion of Mr.. Eyarts's /
stgament the case Of :. Brewn Allen,
Auditor os Public Accounts OF the
Stale OF Virginia. Il al. rs. The Balti-
nose and Ohio Railroad Company. on
sn appeal from the Circuit Court FOR
the Western district Of Virginia, wss
taken up and argued by Attorney-G sa-
rsai Blair, OF Virginia, ca behalf OF
The appellants, AMI by siessrs. Shefsy
and Cowen ON behalf Of the appellee. I
Tie only Substantial difference betseea
ibis and the other Cases is thst in tki,
case the Baltimore snd Ohio Company !