Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-08-27
Observation-Disclosures %, 1885
A Strong Case for Virginia.

A Strong Case LOT virginia
The Providence Rhode lsland) Jour
nal responds in a temperate and fair
article to our appeal to it "to empha-
size whstit holds to be involved in obedl-
ence TO the Constitution" Although
Il insists that the Dispatch is advo-
eating mild form Of Modification, and
attempts TO sustain the decision OF
the Supreme Court in the Virginia
coupon cases, it says in the beginning
of It's article that it "will ende1vor to
mt the case of Virginia as strongly as
the Dispatch puts it," And we think
il does that very thing. In fact, we
could not ask a stronger case for Viz
GINA than it makes. The Journal,
after quoting the eleventh amendment,
says:
1.-THE Dispatch AYERS its full and
hearty obedience to said provision, and
we accept its averment as being sin
cerely made. II is unnecessary for as
10 sov that re hold TO the enforcement
Of the a, Of euery clause Of the ST.
prone lar."
The italics are ours. Mark, now,
that our Providence contemporary
holds that ii is the supreme law of the
land that 1.-THE judicial power of the
United States shall not be construed to
extend to any suit in Law or equity
commenced or prosecuted against
one Of the United States by citi-
zens Of another State, or by citi-
zens or subjects Of any foreign State"
1t consequently admits that State
cannot be compelled to pay her bonds.
The Supreme Court of the United States
asserts that also but Mr.. STANLEY
MATTHEWS and his asserting asso-
ciateS endeavor to make Virginia pay
the coupons cut from these bonds by
resorting to the subterfuge that the
suits in the coupon cases were
suits against individual persons. The
Dispatch holds that this is legal fic-
tion-a usurpation by which the
eleventh amendment was trampled in
the dust. The Dispafch's position is
in harmony with the language Of the
opinion of the four dissenting JUS
tees, including Chef-Justice WAITE,
who, the Journal says, "cer-
tainly adheres to the spirit of the law"
The Dispatch contends that the suits
were in reality suits against the
State, and that no "skilful manipula-
ton OF words" could make them any,
thing else. If the Dispatch is right,
there can be no question of the fact that
STANLEY MATTHEWS was guilty of
usurpation and that the Constitution
has been grossly violated. That is
necessary conclusion. And if the Jour
nal is not singularly unfortunate in the
choice of its words, it comedies that the
Dispatch is right and that the suits
were suits against the State. 1t says
"Virginia owes money; those to
whom she owes it ask for payment.
They have been promised payment in
part; they are now refused such pay
ment. They appeal to the courts, and
finally TO the Supreme Court Of the
United States as the court of last re-
sort. That court decided that the
coupons Of the State bonds should be
received in payment Of taxes according
10 the terms Of the statute authorizing
the issue Of said bonds"
And again:
"The Dispatch agrees with the
Journal that the law is to be found in
the Constitution. But the creditors OF
Virginia said that the Constitution said
one thing; Virginia insisted that it said
another thing. The only power on earth
TO decide the controversy was the Su.
preme Court of the United States.
That court decides by majority Of the
judges; it decided against Virginia"
If the above extracts do not contain
an admission that Virginia was dragged
into a Federal court and sued in gross
violation of provision Of the Consti.
tuition, to the enforcement" of which
the Journal "holds," then the Jour
mars gift Of saying what it means hs,
deserted it. II is but just to the Jour
nal to say that it defends its defence
Of the Supreme Court on the grounC
that whatever that court lays down il
law, for the reason that that body is tn
only authoritative power in the con
struction of the Constitution, aud tina
the decision in the coupon cases wa
equity" As to the first proposition
the Journal does not draw the distinction
between constituting" and "legisls
ting" AS to the second, that is no de
fence at all under the circumstances
bat even If il was the fact would still
stand that the Journal has made
strong case for Virginia. As far 8
the broader issues involved are con
cerned the Journal has virtual,
endorsed the Virginia Democrats
Anent its charge that the Dispateh i
advocating notification, that must g
to the ground unless it holds that it j
notification TO endeayor TO have 70
spected what it THE Journal declares
in unequiyocal terms is the suprem,
law.