The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1885-04-23

2. That although the right to have such
coupons received III payment OF taxes is
founded on IL contract with the State, and
that right is protected by the constitution
OF the United States by article !, section
10, forbidding the State to pass any laws
impairing the obligation OF the contract,
the only mode OF redress, in case OF any
disturbance or dispossession of property.
OF other legal rights based on such viola
lation Of the contract, is to have IL judicial
determination i'll suit between indiyid-
uals OF the invalidity OF the law under
color OF which the wrong has been COM
mitted. No direct action for the denial
OF the right secured by the contract will
lie.
Another case, viz, No. Sal, Peasants
against Greenhow, is covered by the above
opinion.
A DISSENTING OPINION.
Mr.. Justice Bradleyread carefully pre-
pared dissenting opinion, in which the
Chief Justice, Justice Miller.and Justice
Gray concurred The opinion has refer
ence particularly to case No. 826, Allen
against the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
Company, and the fundamental ground of
the dissent, as set forth by Justice Brad
ley, is THAT this proceeding, and all other
proceedings on these coupons, brought
| here for review are virtually suits against
| the State of Virginia to compel specific
performance by the State of her agree
ment to receive the said coupons in pay
ment of all taxes, dues and demands.
| However just such proceeding may seem
/ in the abstract. or however willing courts
might be to sustain it if it were conStitu-
| tiOnal, yet. looking at the case as it really
| is, we regard it as directly repugnant to
| the eleventh amendment of the constitu-
ton. which declares that the judicial
power of the United States shall not be
construed to extend to any suit in law OF
equity commenced or prosecuted against
any one OF the United States by citizens
of another State, or by citizens or sub
| jects of any foreign State. -
Counsel for the bondholders press upon
our attention that provision OF the con-
stitution which declares that no State shall
pass any law impairing the obligation of a
| contract, and insist that the laws passed
by the Legislature of Virginia forbidding
the receipt of coupons for taxes since the
passage of the act OF 1871. by which they
were made receivable, are unconstitutional
and absolutely void and that no officer or
| tax collector of the State is bound to re-
gard, but, Op the contrary, is bound to dis
regard them. So we have one provision of
the constitution set up against the other,
and are asked to enforce that relating to
contracts by regarding the individual Of
ficers as the real parties proceeded against,
and ignoring the fact that in the matter
of receiving coupons in payment OF taxes
these officers only represent the State. By
this technical device it is supposed that
1 the eleventh amendment may be evaded.
In my opinion this IS not sound or
fair Interpretation of the constit ution.
II the contract clause and the 18th amend
ment come into conflict, the latter has par
amount force. 1t was adoptedaS an amend
naept to the constitution, and operates as
an amendment of every part OF the con-
stitution to which it is at any time found
to be repugnant. Every amendment of
law OF constitution, revokes, alters, OF
4 adds something. 1t is the last declared
I will of the law maker and has paramount
force and effect, : : The con-
stitution still declares that no State shall
pass any law impairing the obligation of a
contract, but the effect of the amendment
is that even if the State should pass 6, law
Eimpairing the validity of its own con.
tract. no redress can be had therefor in
the Federal 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 existed, and can
not resort to compulsion unless the State
chooses to permit itself to be sued.
Moreover. the eleventh amendment is
not intended Us mere jingle of words, to
be slurred over by cunning subtleties and
artificial methods of Interpretation, SO al
to give it a literal compliance without re
Igarding its substantial meaning and ptlr
lpoSe. 1t is a grave and solemn condition,
eXacted by sovereign States for the pur-
pose of preserving and indicating their
sovereign right to deal with their creditors
land others propounding claims against
them according to their own views Oh
what may be required by public faith and
the necessities Of the body-politic. We
have no right, ii we could be disposed, tt
fritter away the substance of this soIem,
stipulation by any neat and skillful manipG-
lation of its words. We are bound tagiye
Iit its full and substantial meaning and
Il effect. i
All this litigation in reference TO the
through the medium of the federal courts
to George the State Of Virginia into full
hllmept of her contracts.
/ There is no question about the validity O
l the taxes they are admittedly due thu
officer is entitled to collect them his au
: thority is undisputed. The coupons are
rendered in payment-not rs money, fol
they have no quality OF money-but as
. set-otf, Which, as is insisted, the State has
agreed to allow. The taxpayer stands on
this agreement and seeks to enforce it.
: All suits undertaken for this end are in
truth and reality suits against the State t(
compel a compliance with its agreement
A set-off is nothing but q cross-action, an(
can no more be enforced against State
, without its consent than direct action
can be. When Set-otfs are allowed against
: the soyereign..it is always by virtue. of
some express statute. :. 4. y x <.
THE officers have 20 power but what
the State gives them. They act for and
on behalf CT the State, aud in no Other
: tway, To sue them, therefore, because
they will not receive the coupons in pay
ment is virtually to sue the State. The
sole object IS to coerce the State. To say
otherwise is to talk only for effect. with.
; out regard to the truth Of things. = <
The tax is due no money is rendered
The taxpayer only offers to set off the cou;;
: pons, which are nothing but due bills OF
J the State, and pleads the States collateral
, agreement to receive them. This is not
, money. and bears no resemblance to
! nancy. 1t is simply Il promise. The
State. for reasons of its own. declines tC
J comply with its agreement in mode and
form, and forbids its oficera to receive the
CoupulS ~ pdvDltAt M tttAeS. 1no LAX
payer insists that the State shall comply
| with its agreement. All the proceedings
; instituted by him to enforce the receipt OF
the coupons OF to obtain redress against
! the collector for not receiving them have
this object alone in yiew-tO compel the
State to fulfill its agreement. 1t is idle to
J say that the proceeding is only against the
officers. This is a mere pretense. The
real object is to coerce through it's officers
/ to compel the specific performance by
the State of its agreement. = - 1t
!, is said that the government does not repre-
sent the State when it does an uncQnstisu-
tional act or passes an uncoqstitutiO
law Whilst this may be averred when
the government Of q State attempts to
force the State from it's constitutional re
lations with the United States and to pro-
duce disruption OF the fundamental bonds
of the national compact, and whilst in such
a case it may be admissible to say that the
government of the State has exercised a
usurped authority, this MODE Of speech is
not admissible in ordinary cases of legis-
lati1n and public administration. The
State can only act by and through it's con-
stituted authorities, and it is represented
by them alone in all the ordinary exhibit
tions of sovereign power. It may act
| wrongly, it may act ncOnStitutiOnally,