Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1885-05-01
amendment, which provides thai
1. IL :1.t ..- & a., If,tt..J

bhC JuhlNhl DONFi W ~
States shall ~ m
tend to any
begun or p''s'
one of the United o....s
zens Of another state
Our morning contemporary in'
dulges fond hope that the inhu-
ence of Democratic administra
ton will in time be 80 felt that the
rights of the states will be safe
not only from direct assault, but
strained constructions of courts,
which really do more harm than
good
The probable meaning of this
| somewhat obscure remark is that
'the influence of "a Democratic adj
ministratlon' will 'be felt in the
appointment of Democrats to the
supreme bench. But is the hope
of relief in that way well founded,
in view of the fact that Mr.. Justice
Field, the only Democrat on the
bench, concurred with the majority
in this decision 7
The New York Tribune mentions
as peculiarly significant that this
decision was sustained by Justice
Field, of California, Harlan, OF
Kentucky, aud Woods, of Georgia,
the three justices from southern
states, and by Justice Blatchford,
OF New York, and Matthews, OF
Ohio, who delivered the opinion,
while the dissenting opinion,
maintaining the sovereign power
of state, was delivered by JUS
tice Bradley, of New Jersey, and
supported by Chief Justice Waite,
OF Ohio, Justice Miller, OF Iowa,
and Justice Gray, of Massachu-
sets"
Washington Post " 1t is also
to be noted that four Of the niue
Judges of the court the Chief
Justice and Justice Bradley, Mil
Ter and Gray-dissentod from the
foregoing opinion on the very
serious and important ground that
the proceedings in question were
instituted against a State, and
were, therefore, in violation of the
Eleventh amendment to the Con
stitution, which provides that the
judicial power of the United Stairs
shall not be construed to extend to
any suit in law or equity common
ced or prosecuted against one Of
the United States by citizens Of
another State, or by citizens or
subjects OF any foreign Stste.'
Baltimore Sun: To meet the plea
that the eleventh amendment Of
the constitution forbids a State to
be sued, the court holds that suit
brought against the agent Of the
State in the person of the tax col
lector is not snit against the
State, but is a salt against an in
dividual trespasser acting without
legal authority. "The taxpayer
: and coupon.holder has right to
treat as wroDg-doer the officer
who seiEes his property to en-
force a payment Of taxes in money
after a tender of coupons has once
been made, and may "insist upon
his tender as equivalent to pay
ment." In reference to the con-
tention that it Is a serious impair
ment of the sovereignty of State
to deprive it of control of it's rev
enue, the court maintains that the
"reyenue system must yield to the
contract which the State has law
fully made If the amount of the
coupons falling due annually were
greater than or equal to the entire
) revenue of tue State, the effect OF
the coupon contract-which the
court pronOunces equally with the
constitution Of the United st ates
: "irrepealable by any act on III
part y might be disastrous to the
} public schools and the judiciali
and administrative machinery o.
the State, but happily these inter
ests do not consume, it is stated
, more than about 81, 100000 out O.
revenue approaching $4,000, 900 II
amount, leaving nearly $4,000
to meet the $1,400,0O0 Of interest
accruiDg annually on the entire
debt 1t is to be observed, how
ever, in rNgard to the above decl
sion that there is dissenting opin
ion, and that this opinion is con
, cured in by the chief justice and
three other justices. The dissent
rests upon the ground that thu
suits before the court are "vlrtual
} " suits against the State OF Virgl
J MAJ and that the proceedings up
on them are directly repugnant
to the eleventh amendment of the
constitution which provides thai
no suit in law or equity shall be
commenced or prosecuted against
a State by the citizens of another
State. "The eleventh amend
ment," the dissentients contend,
is not intended as mere jingle
of words, to be slurred over by
cunning subtleties and artificial
methods of interpretation"
Richmond State: The decision in
the coupon cases by which a ma
jority OF the Supreme Court sue
ceeded in grossly misinterpretting
tho Eleventh Amendment to the
Constitution and In giving approval
of the plain violation Of that instru'
ment, is a striking instance Of 80
called "loose construction which
has always been vigorously oppos
ed by the Democratic party. The
only proper construction is strict
construction, and as soon as jurist
or statesman attempts to distort
the meaning of the Constitution he
strikes o blow at the very founda.
ton OF our liberty.
But while this is true, our people
should not suffer their natur al dis.
appointment at the decision of the
court to get the better of their
judgments. AS we said few days
ago, no policy Of mere underbid
ding, no race alter impossible re-
pudiation-impossible, as has been
shown by the court itself-will be
tolerated by the better sentiment
in this Commonwealth. 1t is not
probable that even the bOnd.hOlders
will expect the people to retrace all
the steps already taken.
Baltimore San: "The recent de-