New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-04-21

S,ozt liza 20 collect
S ssssS " Fiat although right to have such
coupons received ns that right is protected by
he Constitution of the United states Dy hrucie ne OH
o the the only mode redress in case OF
sSy disturbance or dsposstson OF ltgct is 70
hya niiesl discrimination in suit between indx1
ass Of the invadity of the law under color o. be
the wrong has committed: No direct aeuPn o ''
denial of The right secured by the contract VIII ne "a
Another case. No. 9i1, Peasants against oree""'"'
Justice Bradley read carefully prepared
opinion in which the ChefJustce' @ Terence par
ystice GRAY concurred The opinion has
snafy TO- case No s26 Allen against the of tbe
and Ohio Company and the sree Bradley that this
and ali other proceedings on these hs
brought here for rex W compel ape specc by
the state OF her agreement 10 Iee ee. and de.
%apSs However just such proceeding may seem IN
IN the abstract. or however wing et ooSng at the
ease il really is we reg ard it directly repuSnaht TO
the lh amendment OF the Of tne United states shall
not be construed to extend TO any suit IN Jaw n OF
equity D sSs United stateS BY citizens
other State or by c tor the Spuahoaers press
upon our attention that provision OF the Gos inir
which declares that State shall pass any h law hs paws
RAISED by the Legislature of Virginia forbddng the re-
eept Of coupons for taxes since the o. are nm
absolutely void and nat no Sn S o the Us
tax collector of the State Is snesad them
So one proyison of the Constitution set up against e
nv rsSarlinS the individual officers as the real parties
proceeded against, and ignoring inc act mas these
matte, Of Tscsvss the state BY this technical de-
vice IL is supposed that the cieVeIth nnt sound
syaasd d in %y GP1n0o Of ' ths
tho contract clause and the eleventh srn II was
into conflict the latter has PARAMOUNT and
adopted as an amendment 10 the Consltu En Tim
operates 2; an m az Sny time found
Every amendment Of law or ss declared viii of
The law maker and has paramount force ana en me-,
The Constitution still declares tnae o no o.a,o
shall mass apy law impairing the obligation OF eehttac
but the effect the amendment Is That even oeaoe
.ho law %Pan sa the ss2aars IN the Federal
Courts All those who deal with state nave S bSv
Of this s9 ta the State lust as if no
constitution existed, and cannot resort 10 ma9
Moreover the Eleventh Amendment is not INTENDED as
Jingle Of words, to be surred over py n ne
TO give it literal compliance without regarding It's SUI
santia meaning and purpose is e ar the U pnrpose
OF preserving and yndicating their sovereign sam
deal with their creditors and others of what NAV
I've required by public faith and the necessities OF 5e
body rSSf TO r asTe n away Tshti the
OF this solemn stipulation by any neat ana afrs IL m
full and sub taDtial meaning aud effect All this
igatOn in referenc. TO the virginia oon9s anu Goo
to ccerce the State Of Virginia into fnltment OF
a aSGo, contacts r.. validity of the taxes they arc
aSmittedly due; the officer is entitled to
collect them his authority for rh9 bey aVe
quality of money-but as se-tou WHEEL % -
sisted the state nss and seeks to enforce it. All
suits undertaken for this end are I'D truth anu & rs
agreement setof is nothing but crsss-actlon ana
can be enforced AGAINST state without s cor
allowed against the sovereign il is always by virtue OF
some express statute Inc mem Tsry ACT for and
on behalf Of the State, and in no other way 10 sue
Them therefore because they will not receive me co
pons III payment ia virtually 10 sue the state Inc soe
object is to coerce the To otherwise - 70 aK
only for effect without regard Tor the n Vi ,be s
only Offers to set on the ws a are eo
lateral agreement to receive them This is not money
and 1t bears resemblance to money IL is Simply
somply with its agreement in and form and for.
bids its officers to receive the coupons Id w
with its agreement. All the proceedings instituted by
him to the receipt of the coupons or to Obtain
have this object alone in viewto compel the state to
fun It's agreement IL e 10 that saj I mere pe1ense
The object is TO coerce the State through it m
to compel the specific performance ny ue 0'"'o VI "
This is the first time. believe since the eleventh
amendment adopted that any stat mas pen ~ S
by judicial proceeding at the SUIT OF huNuuS, ~ W
Foeral courts That this such ease seems one n
the plaipest PROPOSITIONS that can be uttered We
have thought IL necessary or proper 70 MAKE a!
other State has the ION S
Judicial prosecution and OF determining her oSn
81 ap rsdeom RG her Obligations, not This Court
when considering the question OF her t @
rights, to pass In Judgment upon the propreV Vi her
conduct on the one side or the other"
The dissenting opinion Nos 5ss, $780, and
1850 and S26
A decision was also rendered the polygamy case OF
Rudger Cawson against United States brought here
by writ to the Supreme Court OF Utah Claw
son. plaintin error, was Indicted for poygany at
after trial found guilty and sentenced to tine OF
$500 and four years Imprisonment He appealed to me
Gu,ra he
affirmed the judgment OF the district court ne brought
ms ns neie r les Sv Witch be was indicted and tried
were Illegally constituted. The alleged llegalty
empanelling OF the Grand Jury consisted Ia the
exclusion upon challenge of persons who believed that
had right 10 have more than one undlyorced WIG
Jury ia the drawing OF jurors from an "open venire"
after whole annual Jury list OF two hundred had been
Court in carefully prepared opinion by Justice Batch
ford decides against The painiih 10 error upon both inc
THAI in any prosecution for bigamy, poygamy or un
lawful cobSbi;aon under any statutes Of Ine G y, G
person drawn or summoned as Juryman or taiesmsn
divorced wife at the time This
@Seh Sa ana Tor Of
under statute of the United States against person
not before held TO part OF the prosecution
that the indictment is good although persons drawn
aud summoned as ga1d rsn6 v on helm"
by the United States for the cause mentioned III the re
the alleged lie ality In the OF the petit jury the
court holds that where under Section Of the act of June
90 1874, relating to courts and judicial eteer in the
Utah, the in the jury box or the zoo
Jurors provided for that section exhausted the
Jury being emily partly cmpaned the district court may
Issue a yenire 10 the United states marshal
for the Territory jurors from the body OF the
Judicial district and the jury may be completed from
persons thus ned. II 10 held that the record
aud the Judgment OF the court below Is
accordingly affirmed.
A decision was also rendered In the murder OF
Frederick Hopt plaintiff in error against the people OF
the Territory OF Utah The principal interest which this
case has IL derives fact that since December
1885, the plaintiff In has been three times tried for
the murder three tines found guilty and three
times sentenced TO death A most determined night haA
been made for his fe the having been brought 10
this court upon legal technically after judg
Iner In hal NOW hack a fourth