Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-04-09
THURsDAY..........APRIL 0, 1885
swayne and Eyarts.

Swayne and Evarts.
We had heard that Mr.. STAPLES had
administered severe rebuke to MIR.
WAGER SwAYNE because Of certain
remarks made by SwAYSE in his recent
speech in the United States Supreme
Court in one Of the debt cases from
Virginia but we had no suspicion that
Mr.. SwAYNE had substituted for argu-
mcnt such stuff as the Baltimore
SIMS Washington correspondent quotes
as having fallen from his lips--as fol-
lows:
1.-THE idea that 1 have yentured to
present--that il is mistaken pretense
10 put forward as State rights what are
in fact State wrongs that this idea is
mistake for the reason that it is at va
rance with the essential character and
nature of State because State, your
lIonors know, is nothing if it be not
the embodiment Of the aspirations Of
her people toward honesty and order,
to which morality is indispensable);
that when rogucs get possession of
State-when they do in the name and
with the assumed power Of the State
that which benefits and arises from their
own character as rogues-they do not
represent the State, but they are trait
ors TO the State, who do cucumber and
impair the States vitality by the injec-
ton Of their violence. This is not my
suggestion, but Judge Curtis's own.
No, may it please your Honors, knaves
are no, any more the State than knavery
is craftsmanship"
We venture TO say that Mr.. RoYALL
did not SO lower himself as TO resort to
such clap-trsp. The Constitution says
that Virginia shall not be sued. That
is the States fright " under the Con-
stitution. The only "wrong that can
be coupled or contrasted with that
fright" is the wrong" Of being
sued and it was against this wrong
that yirginia's counsel protested. What
contemptibly puerile answer to their
argument is Mr.. SwAYNE's. The
youngest lawyer in Virginia would be
ashamed to present such a thing as an
argument to any court, more especially
to the Supreme Court of the United
States. His argument is that because
yirginia's rulers are rogues, therefore
the Federal Constitution can be violated
in her case If they were honest, the
State could not be sued
Mr.. EvARTs adopted device as
little creditable TO him as great law
yer as WAGER SwAyHE's logic was
to him as very little lawyer. Mr..
EvARTs said
81 understand, really, that the right
Of the State to annul the Constitution
Of the United States lies at the bottom
Of this proposition; that the private
citizens citizens Of the United States,
governed by their laws, presided over
by their courts-are utterly unprotected
before the judiciary of the nation, and
the peaceful power Of the Union itself
cannot prevail against the predominant
effect Of the wilful authority Of the
State of Virginia"
IL NJ m nj
saying that the Constitution OF the
United States forbids Virginia to be
sued. "The right of the State to annul
the Constitution Of the United States "
is derived from the eleventh amendment,
which modified that clause Of the Fede-
ial Constitution forbidding State to
pass any law impairing the obligation
of contracts so as TO provide that
STATE should not be sued under that
clause. That is a good point, and we
wonder that it was not pressed upon
the attention Of the Supreme Court Of
the United States. Let us repeat: The
Constitution as first adopted provided
that State might be sued in the Federal
courts il ii passed any law impairing
the obligations Of its own contracts.
The eleventh amendment was subse-
quentiy added to the Constitution.
This forbids that a State shall be sued
in the Federal courts by citizens Of an
other State or by citizens or subjects
Of any foreign State. OF course If this
amendment and the clause spoken Of
cannot both stand together the clause
goes by the board.
Mr.. EvARrs and Mr.. SwAyNE both
endeavored TO influence the court by
sinister appeals. They used no argu-
mcnts.