Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-02-18
inal hearing of the cause, that We are

into the equities of the one at bar.
The contract of the State with the
holders Of coupons like those under
consideration cannot he denied. The
eenuinencss Of the particular coupons,
"a. ESQ in nominal amount, as TO which
an injunction is asked for, is not de-
nicd, and must be assumed TO be con-
ccdcd.
1t is the misfortune Of the defendants
| in all this class OF suits that they can
not deny on oath the genuineness of the
coupons sued upon and that the court
upon all the rules of pleading, and by
reason of section 80 Of the 10th chap
ter Of the Virginia Code, must take
their gcnuincpess as confessed. The
Supreme Court Of the United States de-
clared in AntOni r. GreenhOW that the
legislation Of Virginia relating to the
verifcation Of coupons in no manner
shifts the burden Of proof.
Nor IS it worth while to advert to
the provision Of the National Consti-
tuition which forbids State from pass
| ing any laws violating or impairing
| the obligation of her contracts or to
| show that such laws are uncOnStltu-
tional. null, and void. Nor is II neccs-
sary to show particularly the unconsti-
| tutionalty Of legislative acts Of Nir-
ginia which in their practical effect
operate TO destroy or impair the con-
tract specifically set out in this bill.
Nor need it be shown that the coupons
now sued upon do evidence a contract
between the State Of Virginia and the
complainant. That this is valid, sub
sisting contract has, in reference to
similar coupons. been declared by the
Supreme Court Of the United States in
Hartman e. Greenhow, l02 L. s., 672,
and by the Supreme Court Of Appeals
of Virginia in Anfoni =. Wright. %
Grattan, S33 and by both courts III
other cases, which need not be cited.
For the purposes Of this case. all
these propositions may he assumed to
be finally and irreyocably settled and
| shall coniine myself to questions
which are in some degree peculiar to
the present suit. and which may be
thought open still to discussion.
These are, first, whether this court
has, as Federal court, jurisdiction of the
suit itself: and, if so. second, whether.
As court of equity, it has jurisdiction
of the remedy sought to be employed
The first is only another form of the
question whether we have jurisdiction
as 10 the parties to the record. The
complainant being a resident of New
York. and the defendants residents Of
Virginia. we have jurisdiction a to the
paiticS unless the objection be valid
that the parties defendant here are sued
as officers of the State, and that the
real defendant is the Commonwealth OF
virginia. If 50. then we have no iu-
rsdiction for although Virginia in the
National Constitution granted the right
to be sued in the Federal courts in Ger
tain cases by the subjects Of foreign
countries or citizens of sister States,
vet by the eleventh amendment she re-
N'hAN lllAA anu
The question therefore j.. whether
suits against the officers of a state in
respect to the discharge Of their public
duties are. in all cases. suits against the
states themselves; and ifnot I'M all. then
in what cases:
When the suit Of the B0Hjmore oHd
Ohlo Rodrodd ConipGnyc. Alien, 1"ii-
ton, and HdmHtoR. TIc0sHc-l1 Fed
cral Reporter. l7l-waS before the
Judges of this court, Seyerally, IN the
spring of 1888, this very question was
the pivotal one Oh which the case
turned. On application by the COM
pany 10 me for a preliminary in
junction to restrain the venue officers
of Virginia from distraining for take,
after tender of coupons, refused the
Injunction, principally on the ground
that the suit was. III fact. against the
Commonwealth, and only in form
against her officers personally. The
circuit Judge (Judge Bond), a day or
two afterwards, ON application to him,
granted the Injunction, taking the oppo-
site view. and holding that that was not
a suit against the State. Not Onlywa this
hut other important questions connected
with the Obligations of the State and
her officers to receive taN-rccciyablc
coupons were involved. An appeal
was taken. and we have been cOntin-
ualv anxious that The supreme Court
should decide that case. and give Us the
guidance Of its rulings on the questions
presented in it. But il has been allowed
TO await It's turn on the oycrburdcncd
docket of that court. The appcllce-.hc
railroad company--cannot move to adj
vance il; and. although section 9l9 of
the nitcd states Revised Statutes. in
all cases "whcn State is party. or
the execution of the revenue laws of a
state il enioncd or STAYED" authorizes
the State herself to move TO advance,
and the State has been all the time en-
titled To speedy hearing of this and
other causes on the docket of the SUI
premc Court. if She but demanded it.
this important case was not advanced
until lately. when it with others in
which she Is a party. was set down for
hearing on the 10th of March proXimo.
We have postponed our own action III
many coupon cases now before us.
awaiting decisions in those now in the
Supreme Court. our policy has been
10 refrain from all action which with
any color of propncty can bepoStponcd !
for that purpose.
! do not. however. think that the
question of jurisdiction a to parties in
the case at bar is any longer undecided
IN the supreme Court. At the last term
it decided the case of Cunningham =.
The .R0con oad BrHHxw,cL hGiiro0d
CompGay, reported IN 100 |. :, +lG,
IN which il claboratcly discussed the
question which conlront> this court in
the case at bar. The Supreme Court
said
The failure of several Of the states OF the /
Union to pay the debts which they have /
contracted and To discharge other Obliga-
tionS OF contract character. when taken !
IN connection with the acknowledged prin- /
ciple that no state can he sued IN the Ord- I
unrN courts aS Il defendant except 10y her I
own consent. has led. IN recent times, to /
numerous efforts TO compel the performance I
uf their Obligations 10y judicial proceedings /
10 which the state Is not "a party. These !
sutf, have ppuafailN nppu luSttfufpd ia The I