Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-05-26
Don't be Alarmed.


self TO the favor Of the mischievous
persons in his city Of Baltimore and
elsewhere who would like to have .
receiver appointed for the State OF Vir-
rinis. He has even ordered execution
TO issue in certain cases against Of
flcers who have refused to receive
coupons for taxes. However. in the
cases VIC are speaking Of, the atsor-
nsy for the State failed, We suppose
to make the plea that the coupons
had not been proved to be genuine.
In Carter %. Greenhsp and in Plea
sanfs rs. GyssnAsr, two Of the Virgins
cases lately before the Supreme Court
ofthe United States, that court decided
as follows. We quote from Mr.. JUS
tice Matthew's opinion in the latter
case the following unmistakable Ian
guage:
GAS the sum or value in controversy
does not exceed five hundred dollars,
the suit cannot be maintained ~ q case
arising under the Consultation and laws
of the United States, provided for in
the act Of March 3, 1875, chapter l37,
Stat. 40"
How many persons in Virgins can
bring a suit in the Federal courts which
involves more than five hundred dol
lars worth of coupons? In a word,
how many persons pay State taxes in a
sum greater than five hundred dollarss
Only these fsw-not two hundred
could find remedy in Bonds court.
In Garter cs. Greenhop, the Su-
preme Cour. of the URited States was
still more explicit. After asking how
and in what sense certain rights are
secured to CARTER by the Constitu-
ton of the United States, the Supreme
Court answers its own questions Is
follows:
"The mode in which Congress has
legislated in aid Of the rights secured
by that clause Of the Constitution, is
.. by providing for review
on writs Of error to the State courts,
in cases where they have failed proper
ly to give it effect, and by comforting
jurisdiction upon tho circuit courts by
the act of March 8, 1878, chapter 1877,
Is Stat, 470, Of all cases arising un-
der the Constitution and laws Of the
United States rAere tie sam or sat~e IN
dispute eressSs .fpe Hundred dollars.
Congress hes provided no other remedy
for the enforcement Of this right"
Isn't that clear enough? If not, read
the following from the same opinion:
"That constitutional provision for
bidding any State to pass law impair
ing the obligation of contractsl so far
as it can be said to confer upon, or Sc
cure to, any person any individual
rights, does so only indirectly and in
cidentally. II forbids the passage BY
the States oflaws such as are described.
II any such are, nevertheless, passed
by the Legislature of State, they are
unconstitutional, null and void. In any
judicial proceeding necessary to vindi-
cate his rights under . contract affected
by such legislation, the individual has
right to have judicial determination
declaring the nullity Of the attempt to
impair its obligations. This is the
only right secured TO him by that clause
Of the Consfitutios."
Isn't that plain enough! And i
BoNp decides otherwise, his decision
will be overruled. Read again wha'
the court says:
1.-The right 70 pay his taxes in ecu
pons and the immunity from further
proceedings in case Of rejected ten
der are not rights directly secured q
him BY the Constitutisn, and only 81
indirectly as they happen in this cas-
to be the rights Of contract which b,
holds under the laws Of Virginia. Al
the smiy mode in eAieh that coasssss
fiomal security takes effect is by judi
cisl process TO invalidate the unconstl
tutional legislation Of the State when
is set up against the enforcement
rights under his contract"
1t does seem TO US that oil that
easily understood. Judge BoSD car
not 80 behind that opinion; or, if h
does, the Supreme Court will revers
his decisions. He can Of course PR
coed in the eases already before him il
volving more than Ave hundred dollar
and in which the coupons rendered WEI
admitted to be genuine but when
comes TO new cases, he will find d
ferent condition Of things prevailing.