Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-09-11
H. 1885,
Tho Debt Plank of the Virginia Demo-
crafc Platform.


come one Of State sovereignty, although
our contemporary of the Providence
Jouynai seems to look upon that de-
elaration as one squirting at something
.,most as bad as the doctrine of the
right Of State to secede from the
Union. The Journal says:
Now, will the Dispatch say squarely
whether it believes that any State is en-
titled TO resort to subterfuge in or
der to prevent the legal operation of the
law as declared by the Supreme Court
of the United States: Does it not adj
nit the power of the judiciary of the
United States z"
"We do not want the Dispatch to
argue the correctness or incorrcctness
of the decision in the coupon cases.
That il not the point. That which we
inquire about is what it believes and
teaches as to the iinslity of the law as laid
down by the constitutional tribunal for
the constituting and defining OF the su-
lIeme law
We preach and teach no higher-law
doctrines. We can answer our PrOvi-
dence contemporary by quoting as ex-
pressing our views as to the finality"
of decision Of the Supreme Court what
ABRAHAM LINCOLN once said on the
same subject aud we know that no
good Republican will ask for higher or
better authority. In his inaugural adj
dress Mr.. LINCOLN said:
IL do not forget the position assumed
by some that constitutional questions
arc to be decided by the Supreme Court,
nor do deny that such decisions must
be binding upon the parties to the suit,
while they are also entitled to very
high respect and consideration IN all
parallel cases by all the departments
Of the Government. But the candid
citizen must confess that if the policy
of the Government upon the vital queS-
tons affecting the whole people is to be
irreyocably fixed by the decisions of
the Supreme Court the moment they
are made, as in ordinary cases be-
tween parties in personal actions, the
people will have ceased to be their own
masters, having to that extent resigned
their Government into the hands of that
eminent tribunal
Is that sound doctrine, IL so, surely
our Providence friend will admit that
the Virginia Democrats are right; that
the Dispatch is right and that he
ought to acknowledge the fact, espe-
cially as JEFFERSON, MADISON, and
JACKSON held the same views with
LINCOLN.
Now, let us inquire into the merits
OF the coupon decisions. AS we have
spiked our contemporaries chosen gun,
he may, perhaps, fall back upon that
point. The eleventh amendment reads
"The judicial power of the United
States shall not be construed to extend
10 any suit in law or equity commenced
or prosecuted against one of the United
States by citizens of another State, or
by citizens or subjects of any foreign
State"
Mr.. STANLEY MATTHEws'S opinion
of 1885 says that the coupon cases
from Virginia did not come under that
prohibition. A conclusive answer TO
Mr.. STANLEY MATTHEws's opinion
in that case is TO be found in Mr..
STANLEY MArrnEws'so pinion in the
case Of AHtoHi IS. GreeahoT, l07
United States Reports, page 7S3. lie
laid
"Tor breach of its contract by a
State no remedy is provided by the
Constitution of the United States
against the State itself, and suit to
compel the officers Of the State to do
the acts Whioh constitute the perform
onee Of its contract by The State is a
sWt against The State itseV."
Isn't that a clear statement Of the
law Of the case? DO not those words
Of Mr.. STANLEY MATTHEws's carry
exactly ihe same meaning as the Vir
ginia Democratic debt plank? The sui
to which We object as having beer
I brought in violation of the eleventh
amendment was suit against the Off,
GERS Of the State Of Virginia, intended
TO compel'them 10 do what that amend
ment forbids the court to try TO compel
the State itself TO do, and was there
fore necessarily an unconstitutional
suit. Have We in Virginia not per-
feet right, therefore, to try by all sorts
o." evasive legislation to defeat these
"eyssive decisions Of the Supreme
Court Of the United States: Mr.. Chief
Justice WAITE and his three dissenting
associates we shall here bring to our
assistance. They said in their opinion
in the Virginia coupon cases;
"Ihs 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, there
fore, because they will not receive the
coupons in payment is virtually to sue
the State. To say otherwise is to talk
only for effect, without regard to the
truth Of things"
And we ask our Providence friend to
cease talking only for effect without
regard to the truth Of things" There
il no visible State IL its officers are not
the visible State. Remove ell the Off.
GERS and the State Is = mere name-an
acknowledgements even the ghost Of
STATE. The State named IN the eleventh