The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1885-05-13

P'- ''>'' VI ''''
-As'' - uH'SI no ool'gall'u 10 pay
UGH taxes I'D money Dut may rest Sc
ufeiy Oh lis right to have the coupons
eGs' Gu " men oHefed' ana mat " tax
Director VINO alteInps thereafter TO Tor +
v . ''-'S0' '''' '''Ae9 Oy Ie'ylng upon
''' ''N i'"' eiS PoPsi'! l''lo' 9''ieiueu
y 'Ne I's '7'"'ion 81 lHe STATE Ouy
''''.e' ''i' '''ein i'' at ''i7 own personal
perm.
ihe court holds, furthermore, that
snit brought against a tax collector
for seizure Of tax payers property
after due tender OF coupons, IS not suit
against the state, but Is a suit against
an individual trespasser acting without
authority OF the State. The opinion |
was delivered by Mr. Justice MATTHEWS, |
The Chief Justice and Ju, tees MILLER,
GRAY aad BRADLEY dissenting.
Justice BRADLEY delivered the dis
seuting opinion, the fundamental ground
of which as set forth is that all proceed
ings on the coupons are suits against |
the state Of Virginia and in conflict /
with the eleventh amendment Of the /
constitution Of the United States, which /
declares that the judicial power of the |
United states shall not be construed to |
extend to any suit in Jaw or equity com
meuced or prosecuted against anv one
Of the United States by citizen, Of an !
other State or subjects Of any foreign
state.
The argument Of the bondholders is /
thus met and completely answered by
Justice BRADLEY:
Counsel for the bondhoIders press
upon our attention the provision
oil the constitution which declares that
no state snail pass any law lmPmring the
oOig'tloh OF contract; 50 we have
one provision OF the constitution set
up against the other and are asked to
enforce ln&t relating to contracts, by
regarding the individual officers as the
Ieal parties proceeded against, and
/ ignore 'Ae i'eJ that III the matter OF
receiving coupons III payment OF taxes,
these omcers only represent the State.
ny TINS technical device 1t Is supposed
'i't ,He e'e'eh'h amendment may De
e'"oeo' IA ny opinion ms Il not
7o'liu VI I'',i iu'oi Pie''Iloh ol Vhe con
7.i'u.'oD' ~ 'ne contract cause ana
,iIe e'e' nun "lileHoH4ehl come INTO con
'''N' 'l'g i''''e' mas paramount force IL
was .'uoi''eu a. al amendment 10 the
00'is'i 80 'iou' anu operates as an
''"'''i ~ u every part Oh the
o'''','o''V' - "H'0H IL Is al any time
Iound 10 De repugnant' 1t Is the last
'eo'aied VIII OIL the la"-inaher ana mas
paramount force ana effect
Ihe Constitution still declares that
| no state snail pass any law lmpalring
the obligation OF contract, but the
eHeet oil the amendment Is that even
Il state should pass la" lmparng
the validity OF It's own contract no re-
! dress can be had therefor in the Fed
eral courts. All those who deal with
state have full notice of this funda-
mental condition. They know that
they must depend upon the faith Of
the State just as If no Constitution ex
listed, and cannot resort to compuIsion
unless the State chooses TO permit itself
to be sued. This is the first time we
believe, since the eleventh amendment
was adopted that any State has been
coerced by judicial proceedings at the
suit of individuals in the Federal
courts. That this is such case seems
one of the plainest propositions that
can be uttered"
1t is interesting to note the ingenuity
exercised by the majority of the court
in evading the plain meaning of the
eleventh Amendment to the constitu
ton, the binding force of which is
recognized They admit that as AGAINST
the State the court wopld he nowerIesa
, to grant relief but bv INVOKING that
clause of the constitution which declares
that no State shall pass any law impair
ing the obligation Of contracts, they