The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1885-12-24
Important Daniainns.

On the 10th, In Richmond, was fled with the
Clerk of the U. S. Circuit Court in Richmond
the opinion of Judge Hughes in the suit ofthe
Norfolk Trust Co.. VS.. Mayre. 4udjtoy, &c. 1t Il
the hrstcase In which Judge Hughes has made
any decision upon questions connected with
coupons Involving an application of the rnl.
ings the Supremes Court sof the United States
In the suits decided In April last.
The case now decided was, In brief, this The
Auditor assessed the Norfolk Trust Co., witt
back taxes since lS74-to the amount altogether
OF SSl7.SO The Trust Company presented con.
pons. These were refused absolutely, with
declaration that further assessments in the
nature. of penalties. would be added, and the
whole enforced by proceedings as against 6
delinquent taxpayer. Whereupon the Trust
Company filed a bill in the,U. S. Circuit Courl
praying for an injunction against the proceed.
ings threatened, and to prohibit the Auditor
from refusing to receive the coupons IN pay.
| ment of taxes.
| The opinion is fully epitomized III the sYl.
labus prefixed to it. which is as follows
| /. A suit by a citizen against an officerof a
State, to require obedience to law Of the
state, Is not suit against the state herself
result
of Virginia. 1t Is no objection TO The jurisdie-
ton OF the Circuit Courts of the United States
that one OF the parties is a state, and the other
s. The State OF Virginia has the right to re-
quire all coupons rendered in payment OF taxes
| to be verified in the manner prescribed BY
sections l, and 3, of her act OF Assembly passed
lsJanuary III 1882 The act requires the tax re-
ceiver on the tender of coupons. to do afiirma-
lively several things, by which the proceeding
| for the judicial yeritcation of coupons is insti-
tnted. IL is the State, through the tax-receiver,
| who Is feQnlfed-to take steps necessary to The
Inauguration Of the proceeding II, therefore,
theofIiaer re fuses outright 10 receive the cou-
/ pons, he depTiNes the lax payer Of The only
means Of jueiciaiiy verifying tha coupons ten
d. red for taxes ihe ease then i;ltis within
ihs decision OF iofadatsr Z. GfeeSA5lg liz q .s
-. Htc,stting tlgat tE4r tender OF COUPONS is
| p. Iisesst u The tax,
q iige4deeisions of the ssnpreme Court IN
Alliliasi, in tbs II gene al j ssaly effect
psuifstlFce all legislation 4ic absolutely for
bids the receipt u coNl sons Tor taxes 10 be an-
cons tittltiopal ard V Id and the US. Circuit
Courts are bou. IA to foilow That ruilng.
.. The case of Jfdtye ". Parsons, decided Ky
the Supreme Court in April, which way mate
up by counsel on both sides at the request Of
this court. and was sent up by II to be heard
with other cases in March last, decides nothing
except that coupon holder who is not assessed
for taxes, has but a right or contract IN theSi,
process of the Court to protect his right. That
decision does not affect any other question
which, the suit had been entertained, would
have presented Itself for decision in the case.
1t does not bring into question the validity OF
the mandatory Injunction which Is as old as
the English Equity Jurisprudence.
The opinion discusses these several PROPOSE
lions with earnestness and emphasis and pre-
sents the subjects OF Federal jurisdiction, and
the law of coupons, in a manner perspicuous,
interesting and novel. 1t Is very 1ull on the
jurisdictional question. On the proposition
that a suit against an officer is not suit
against State, it relies upon the late declara-
tiops of the Supreme Court, which were in
substance, that 1t is not competent for any
officer of the Republic to assert with Louis
XIV, the medieval autocrat of France, tetat
c'eSt moi, to Justify violation of law of the
people, enrolled in the statute Book, which he
is entrusted to administer. The officer does
not SO reflect the Uerd e1tgies. embody the Dig
State; that she is insulted when his conduct is
brought under judicial inquiry, at the suit of q
citizen every whit his equal.
On the question whether. if, as claimed this
were suit against the State it could be enter
tanned, the opinion comedies that a State cam
not be sued without its consent, holding con-
versely, however, that it can be If it has gran ted
Jurisdiction. The question, therefore, resolves
has made this grant, Promising that the
Eleventh Amendment does nothing more than
prohibit aliens and uon-r residents from suing
State, the opinion maintains that the constl-
tuition OF the United StateS-which is q grant
of powers from the States to the National Co..
eminent. composed, in part of the Federal j u
arising under the constitution and laws Of The
United States, does grant the right to the clti-
when she violates a right conferred upon him
by the constitution. 1t relies upon the elabor-
ate discussion of this precise proposition by
Chief Justice Marshall in the case of Colsens 7,
Virginia, and the unanimous decision of the
supreme Court rendered In that case in 1921,
tWenty-three years after the adoption of the
Eleventh Amendment. That was a suit In
which two citizens OF Virginia brought an an
pellate suit against their own State in tie
Supreme Court of the United States to set aside
a Judgment which she had obtained against
them In her own court, in conflict with right
conferred upon them by a law OF Congress-
The opinion holds that the reasoning of
Judge Marshall, there applies now to the turis-
Judiciary Act of March Sd, 1876; this reasoning
having peen adopted applied in support of the
Jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts by the SUI
preme Court IN the recent case of A37es v. Kan
sdS. 1t comedies that it was reluctantly ana
unhesltatingly applied by the Supreme Court
In this late case; but insists thai it was never
theless applied because of the UNQUALIFIED terms
OF the act of March 3d. 1875.
The opinion proceeds to show. however, that
all the Jurisdiction of the District and Circuit
courts OF the United States, and even the courts
themselves, are OF statuary creation Ines
upon provisions of the National Constitution
Inc breath OF Congress can unnaake theiriuris-
dlcuon as lis breath has made. There Is
therefore, no ground for fear of the usurpatlon
OF power by the Federal courts, If their power
IS 700 great, the obvious remedy Is, NOT III ex-
PSce1hg thelf Judges TO forsweaT themselves,
Whlch Wonld be ignominons, but in petiEoning
Congress TO reduce the power withia the de-
70 the judicial opinion is appended note, in
Which Judge Hughes expresses. as Il citizen
and lawyer, the confident belief that the Su-
pIelne court VIII sooner or later recede from
It's rulings OH the point on which. without argg-
ment or hearing, 1t dismissed the case Of
' %,
the rights of the holders of Virginia bonds in
respect to the receivability of coupons in Pay
ment Of taxes ,s VIII be short lived. lie says;
The States contract that these shall be tax
receivable IS with the bondholder, and IS not
with the taxpayer before he purchases eou-'
| pons. 1t subsists as long as the bontholdeI
holds. and ceases with him when he sells. his
coupons. The unqualified doctrine that his
right while holding is o mere right 81 sieSi
which the courts are not bound to proteet can
can be used by the State to utterly defeat i is
right to sell. The State has no contract with
q tt.ot,o ~f
Legislation forbidding such taxpayer from
purchasing coupons for the purpose of paying
| taxes would violate no contract with him Ii
would violate only the States contract with
the coupon holder, whose right is now pro-
nounced to be one an Mesi, which the courts are
informed by the decision in the Parsons case,
that they are powerless to protect; and which
OF course. II the courts are prohibited from pro-
| tecting, the Legislature Is not bound to re-
| gard
Legislation to this effect, while inhicting no
wrong at al upon the taxpayer who has not
the holder of coupons who is not a taxpayer
ana as to whom the wrong is now pronounced
TO be dd7naaa1n dbsque ialjat3Td, q naked right
winch cannot be judicially enforced
REMOVED COUPON CASES.
Some half dozen suits for the verification of
coupons, involving more than five hundred
removal from the Hastings Court, of Rich
mond, into the United States Circuit Court
mere mere; IN. me state moved to remand on tho
Gnem. On argument, two weeks ago, Judge
hughes 1ntimated an opinion that they should
t pc remanded; but invited fuller argument at
the present sitting of the Court here. This was
had on Wednesday, Messrs. Bryan and Guigon
conducting it on the part of the tax payers, and
attorney General Blair for The State The
court will pass upon the notion on 10Th I'M
stant. The question is important as a dozen
OF Two other cases like those Just argued are
pending in the Hastings Court.
The fellow, who, by mistake. sent his an
burn haired sweetheart instead Of q bottle
OF DR.. Bulls CoughSyrup bottle of hair
dye, wants to know the best way to commit
suicide.
Mr.. James Boyles has purchased Afessrs.