Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1885-04-21

trespaSS OH the case In Wnlcn the plalntlu
seeks recovery of damages against tax
collector in Virginia, who, having rejected
n tender of tax receivable coupons, seeks to
collect the tax for which they were tender
ed by seizure and sale of personal proper
ty Of the plaintiff.
Second, that although the right to have
such coupons received in payment of taxes
is founded on a contract with the State, and
that right is protected by the Constitution
of the United States, the only mode of re-
dress in case of any dispossession of property
is to have a judicial termination, in suit
between individuals, Of the invalidty of the
law under color of which the wrong has
been committed. No direct action for the
denial of the right secured by the contract
will lie.
Another case, viz, No. 94l, Peasants
against Greenhow, is covered by the above
opinion.
MIR. Justice Bradley read d carefully pre-.
pared dissenting opinion, in which the
Chief Justice, Justice Miller, and Justice
Gray concurred The opinion has reference
particularly to case No. S26, Allen against
the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad company,
and the fundamental ground OF the dissent
rs set forth by Justice Brady is:
"That this proceeding and all other pro-
review are virtually suits against the State
of Virginia to compel q specific performance
by the State of her agreement to receive the
said coupons in payment of all taxes, dues
and demands. However ust such Il pro-
ceedng may seem in the abstract, or how
ever willing courts might be TO sustain it if
il were constitutional, yet, looking at the
CHS as it really is, we regard it as directly
repugnant to the Eleventh amendment OF
the Constitution, which declared that the
judicial power of the United States shall
not be construed TO extend to any suit in
/. law or equity commenced or prosecuted
, against any one of the United States by
citizens of another State, or by citizens or
) subjects of any foreign State
Counsel for the bondholders press upon
f our attention that provision of the Consti-
. tuition which declares that no Slate shall
pass any law impairing the obligation of
contract, and insist that the laws passed by
the Legislature of Virginia forbdding the
receipt of coupons for taxes since the pas.
sage of the act of 1871. by which they We're
made receivable, are unconstitutional and
absolutely void, and that no officer or tax
collector of the State is bound to regard,
but, on the contrary, is bound 10 disregard
, them. So we have one provision of the
Constitution set up against the other, and
, are asked to enforce that relating to con
| tracts by regarding the individual officers
, as the real parties proceeded against, and
+ ignoring the fact that in tie matter Of ~.
ceiving coupons in payment Of taxes these
officers only represent the State. BY this
technical device it is supposed that the
Eleventh amendment may be evaded. In
my opinion this is not sound or fair inter.
probation of the Constitution. If the con
tract clause and the Eleventh amendment
r come into conflict the latter has paramount
force. 1t was adopted as an amendment TO
the Constitution and operates as an amend
ment of every part Of the Constitution to
f which it is at any time found to be repug-
nant. Every amendment OF a law or con-
stitution revok es, alters or adds something.
1t is the last declared will Of the law maker
. and has paramount force and effect"
The dissenting opinion goes on at length
to show that the State cannot be sued di
rectly or indirectly without its consent, and
that the Eleventh amendment was "exacted
f BY sovereign States for the purpose of pre-
. serving and indicating their sovereign
right to deal with their creditors and others
propoundiug claims against them according
to their own views of what may be required
by public faith aud the necessities of the
body polite" stress is also laid upon the
point that the tender of coupons to a tax
collector is only set Off
+ The dissenting opinion covers all the
other cases.
The decision of the Supreme Court in the
debt cases has caused some excitement in
Richmond. F. $. Blair, Mahone's Attorney
General, says that one result will be that
the public schools will I've closed, as the de-
cision will prevent money coming into the
treasury for their support. 1t is generally
believed that the next Legislature, no mat.
ter how composed, will enact new egsla-
ton to block the way Of the decision given,
and the remark is generally made that the
bondholders will get nothing in the end
SPEAKER sTUART's OPINION.
Judge C. E. Stuart, of this city, Speaker Of
the House of Delegates, in response to tel
egram from the Richmond Dispatch sent to
that paper the following:
Taken as a whole, it is snrprise-a
complete reversal of a former decision in
causes almost identical by the same court.
1t wipes out entirely the Riddleberger bill
and all the measures passed to force the
pending funding under that bill. Itat once
places the State revenue under the control
of nearly $3,000,0O0 of past-due coupons.
They must be received by all collecting Of
iicers, or the refusal, if followed by levy, in
wolves an action for damages or Injunction
if the amount be sufficient. 1t makes the
coupon not merely contract, but self COL
iecting instrument. What is more, it covers
every conceivable point in the controversy
and that against the State. The aterna-
lives now pre7ented are, first, an increase of
taxation. which is not probable. Anew set
Item, nj with the creditors or failure to
levy any taxes and resort to the methods
existing in other States-a levy upon the
various county and municipal organizations
for an amount proportional to assessed val
ues sufficient to detray the expenses of the
Government and to meet the interest upon
the amount fixed by the Riddleberger bill"
Craig Declines to Resign.
W. E. Craig, Collector of Internal Rev
enue for this district, with headquarters at