Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-02-28
Hon. John S. Wise ON the Bond
Hughes Decision.
10 the Editor Of tie Dispatch:


10 the Editor Of the Dispatch:
Several gentlemen have called my at
tention to the publication in your paper
and others of my remark that | could
drive horse and wagon through the
decision lately rendered by the Federal
Court in Norfolk on the coupon case.
and asked for my views.
did make the remark. and am still
of the opinion that the decision is erro-
neous. If | had supposed it would be
published perhaps ! would have ex-
pressed the idea in terms more respect
full to the Court and BETTING the mag
ntude of the subject.
But with all proper respect for the
tribunal rendering this decision and the
learning of the judges composing it, !
believe, as a lawyer, that they erred
both in the practice and in the princi-
pies of the case.
As a question Of practice | do not
believe il was q case in which the rem
edy by injunction was applicable. but
the discussion Of that question would
be too technical to be interesting to the
general public, and | think the capital
error of the dccision-an error which
all readers will recognize, whether they
be professional or non-professional per-
sons--is in the effort the decree makes
to compel mere agent to do that which
his principal, who cannot be reached,
will neither sanction nor recognize.
1t is not necessary to discuss how far
The suit against Mr.. Tinsley, tax-col-
lector of Richmond, is a suit against
the State. have no doubt that it is a
suit against the State under the crcum-
stances of this case, and | have no
doubt that the Supreme Court Of the
United States, in the light of its decision
lately rendered in the case of Cunning
ham rs. The Railroad Company, will
so decide. The case last named re-
viewed fully all the suits Heretofore
sustained against agents Of the State,
and clearly intimated that some of the
decisions had gone further than was
justified by sound law. The decision
rendered concludes with a remark that
from what it had said the futility Of
efforts by courts to make State pay
its debts otherwise than in the way it
proposed was apparent.
But outside Of all this the PROPOSE
ton involved in the decision rendered
at Norfolk is simply this;
That a court Of equity may perpe-
tra,e the outrage of giving party re-
lief against an agent acting within the
scope of his authority for the wrongs
of his principal without being able to
protect that agent against his princi-
pal.
Here is Mr.. Tinsley, who has no au-
thority to collect taxes at all save what
he derives from the State Of Virginia as
its agent, and no authority to collect in
anything but what his principal directs.
IL he is ordered 10 collect in money the
State of Virginia can refuse to accept
from him anything else and hold him
bound for the amount in money Of all
taxes for which he has given receipts.
Ii is admitted on all hands that this is
his situation, and il is also admitted
that the Federal courts cannot compel
the State Of Virginia to do otherwise by
any process within its power.
Yet the decree rendered compels Mr..
Tinsley to take coupons for taxes and
give receipts therefor or go to Jail. The
result is that the decree makes Mr..
Tinsley pay the debt Of Virginia or go
TO Jail because he cannot payit.
II lisa delightful alternative presented
to him, making his plight as miserable
as the position ofthe court is ridiculous
and outrageous. The court knows the
debt is not his, and yet it knows il cam
rot make his principal either respon-