The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1885-05-28
Virginia Coupon Cases.

A. communication in the Philadelphia
Times, of the End, signed sVirdex,' con-
tends that the recent decision of the U. S.
Supreme Court in the Virginia Coupon
cases simply re-asserts established doc
trine, as announced by that body in pre-
vious opinion. The communication is as
follows
The decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States in the above cases has
been criticised as asserting new doctrine
of constitutional law and virtually over
throwing the eleventh amendment of the
Constitution. That amendment declares
that the judicial power of the United
States shall not extend to suits against
state by citizen of another state or by an
alien.
Its history is well known. In the case
OF Christopher vs.. Georgia. the Supreme
Court, in the time Of Chief Justice Jaw
held that state could be sued as well as a
corporation. That decision caused great
alarm and resulted in the adoption of the
eleventh amendment. The effect of that
amendment was carefully considered by
the same court in the great case of OS-
born VS.. the Bank of the [ nited States
Ii was there held i that Federal court
may enjoin state officer from executing
state law in conflict with the Constitu-
ton or statute of the United States,
when such execution will violate the rights
OF the complainant (2) that in deciding
who are parties to the suit the COnrt will
not look beyond the record. Making II
state officer a party does not make the state
party, although the law of the state may
have prompted his action and the State
may stand behind him as the real party in
interest
The decision in Osborn VS.. The Bank of
the United States is the established law of
that tribunal and and has been repeatedly
followed. notably in Dodge VS.. Wilson. IS
How, 32l The State Bank of Ohio VS..
Knoop, 1920, 800; The Jefferson Branch
Bank VS.. Sicily, Black, Az: Ohio Life
and Trust Company vs. Debolt, l6 How,
1872 The Mechanics and Traders Bank
VS.. Debot, Is How. $50. and Davis VS..
Gray, l6 Wallace, POS.
OF course, there have been dissenting
opinions On the ground that the suits, al
though in form otherwise, were in effect
against the States, and if the question
were an open one it must be admitted
that there is great force in the reasoning
of the dissenting judges. But, as already
said, it is the settled law of the Supreme
Court that the eleventh amendment, on a
fair construction, does not extend to cases
record. 1T may, we Think said Mar
shall, 9. j., in Osborn VS.. The Bank. &C..
'be laid down as q rule. which admits of
no exception, that in all cases where juris-
diction depends on the party it is the
party named in the record. Consequently,
the eleventh amendment. which sustains
the jurisdiction granted by the constitu-
ton over suits against States, is of ne
eessity limited to those suits in which a
State is party in the record.
If, however, the record shows that the
State is an indispensable party, and that
final relief cannot be granted without
making it a party, the Court will refuse
to take jurisdiction. And it will refuse
also to take jurisdiction when the case
substantially is proceeding against the
state itself and involves the exercise of
some governmental function of the State
Hence it will not by mandamus attempt
to control the funds of the State Treasury
and compel the Treasurer to apply them on
any particular account. las the State
could not be sued or made party to such
proceedings says Mr.. Justice Miller,
there was no jurisdiction in the Circuit
Court, either by mandamus at law or by a
decree in chancery, to take charge of the
State and Selling the hands Of the Au-
ditor ard Treasurer to make distribution
of the funds found in the Treasury in the
manner which the Court might think
just. The Court, in Louisiana VS.. Jumel
100 U. 5. Reports S. CO., Ill. did not
think the Judiciary had powers to assume
control of the fiscal officer of State which
involved such power was not within its
jurisdiction.
There is, therefore, in the Virginia cou-
pom cases no new doctrine established and
no new departure in the administration Of
constitutional law. The Supreme Court
adheres to the doctrine of Osborn VS.. The
Bank. with such exceptions, in the appli-
cation of the doctrine, as are obviously
necessary and not inconsistent with the
doctrine itself