New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-04-22

VI.
them and nav 81 400. 900 for them. And now
Mr.. Oliver has the Impudence to say that De-
cause the CITY has thus acquired the meters
thew should be put in use There is no argu-
ment that was ever urged against this Joo In
the DAYS of Tweed which is not good and valid
against these bills to- day.
STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND REPUDIAIION
Perhaps there has never been more remark
able division of opinion in regard to a question
of constitutional right than that when mas
| iudiciol settlement in the decision OF the
Supreme Court rendered on Monday IN the
Virginia tax cases. The gross injustice ana
| shamelessness of the policy which Virginia mas
tried 10 pursue have perhaps blinded many 10
the necular difficulties of the legal question IN
volyed. 1t was the duty of the Supreme Court
70 decide. not whether Virginia had any moral
right TO repudate, but whether Virginia as one
of the States of this Union had the conS'i'u-
| tional power to repudiate. Under the eie'ehth
amendment of the Constitution 1t Is expressly
provided that 4" the judicial power OF the United
States shall not be construed to extenu 10 any
suit in law or equity, begun or prosecuted
against any one of the United States by cit'-
"zens of another State" This amendment was
proposed by the lid Congress OF the United
| States in 1894, and was declared ratlhed IN
1898. It. is now claimed that, under this
amendment, the United Sta'es has no power 10
| ,mnel a State to perform its obligations, nor 10
| i q through its courts redress to any cltlzen II
| a tate attemnts to violate the constitutional
pr,. ision forbidding any enactment to impair
the litigation of contracts. The Constitution
il is claimed. is only morally binding III this pro-
| hibi IN. The State ought not to impair Uhe
| obi Ition of contracts. But the United states
| has either power nor the moral rRht 10 eA-
| erci @ any coercion through the action oil us
| coLrts 1t has no power TO defend any citlzen
| who NAV be wronged by an unjust act OF aState.
Such Is the theory upon which reputation IN
Virginia. "a in some other States has been thus
far defended. 1t has been claimed that the
State has sovereign power to determine what IS
necessary to its own welfare what due regard
for its own honor requires and that, however
far il NAV err, the United States has no power
to interfere. 1t will be seen that this view OF
the matter is in its essence revival OF the ex-
| IRENE State sovereignty doctrine, for the de-
| fence of such States as may see INT TO violate
| their own obligations and to wrong the citizens
| of other States
no constitutional power 10 enact any law I'M
pairing the obligation of contracts; that snch a
pretended enactment is not valid, and cannot be
held by.any official or other person 10 warrant
him in any act to enforce 1t against clti]rh
who may be wronged thereby. The restraint
| of the eleventh amendment Is avOlued by tue
minority of the court on the ground that suit
AGAINST a State official is not. within the mean
ing of the amendment, suit against the state
This is in harmony with the previous decision
(Osborn as. Bank of the United States, .
Wheaton 1899 that although State Is not
liable TO be sued, yet an injunction Will lie
against its agents TO restrain the execution OIL
an unconstitutional law. In accordance with the
honored rule that all parts of law shall be 80
construed, if apparent conflict exists rs 10 give
effect and vitality to each part as lar as posi-
bic. the court holds that the eleventh amend
ment cannot be so construed as virtually 10 re-
peal and nulify the provision that state shai
have no power to impair the Obligation OF con-
tracts.
II il a noteworthy fact that this decision wa
sustained by Justices Field OF California
Harlan of Kentucky, and Woods oi georgia
the three justices from Southern States, ana Dl
Justice Blatchford of NewYOrk and Matthew
of Ohio. who delivered the opinion. Bnt IN
dissenting opinion, maintaining the sovereign
:, power of State to Iepudate its contracts, am
denying to any citizen thereby Tronged an
redress through United States courts, was de
l,vered by Justice Bradley, of New-Jersey, ant
supported by Chief Justice Waite OF Oplo
Justice Miller, of Iowa, and Justice Gray
Mas sachusetts Though the court was thu
divided, it seems hard to believe that in propos
ing and adopting the eleventh amendment tn
founders of the Government intended to CIV
70 any State full power to disregard the pro
vision prohibiting any act impairing the obliga
ton of contracts. If it had then been suppose
that the amendment would be held the corne
I stone of reputation, it seems quite certain tina
it would never have been adopted.
e THE VAR CREDIT