Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-03-10

Supreme Court Of the United States on
this argument. Its ss follows;
Psrsens Va. Marye. Auditor. and ais
Judges Bond end Hagsaes Reviewed.
| MAaRENToN, VA, March 7, 1885.
| Dear Dispatch: read with interest
and studied with care Judge Hughes's
elaborate opinion in the case OF Par
sons rs. Marye, Auditor, &c, reported
| in your issue Of February 18th past,
and submit to you and the public the
following criticism and review: Beyond
doubt, this case has both political
and . professional aspect. ! propose
only to consider the latter. IL these
learned judges are right, serious-nay,
rs | view them. terrible--consequcnces
must follow. If their decree be sup
ported by Federal law and precedent.
then 81 the autonomy Of this Common
wealth is destroyed, and Article ri. OF
the amendments TO the Constitution
should be stricken from the organic
law. Edward Parsons, who held frac-
ton less than s5. 200 s.of overdue cou-
pons," clipped from bonds alleged tobe
| The genpine bonds of the State OF Viz
GINA, filed his petition or bill in the
United States Circuit Court, to which
he made Marye, Auditor, &C., and
others, defendants, and prayed for an
| Injunction to restrain the defendants
from refusing to accept his coupons in
payment of taxes and other dues to the
| State.
lfgenuine. Parsons's coupons evidence
contracts entered into by Virginia with
| certain bondholders in her sovereign
political entity.
This State is ''Me obligor." the
holders y lie obiigee. Therefore, prac-
tically and IN fdcto, Parsons's suit was
against the State Of Virginia, and his
object 1.-The specific performance of
his alleged contract, and this the effect
of the decree in this case.
Yet. in this suit the State was not
$50 says Judge Hughes) before the court
nor party to the cause. In suit
upon a contract--a 6oRd-the chief Of
the contracting parties, - the obligor,"
| was not before the court nor party to
the cause T.! Marye and the other de-
PENDANTS were not parties to the con-
tract, nor were they ''prcies," nor
were they directly or indirectly con-
nccted with it.
The State. sovereign, and above the
law Qhe ldw-maker, without day in
the Federal court, without opportunity
to make defence, and never served with
process, has been decreed against by
these Federal judges
If men did not, would not tie rocks
make outcry against SUCH ENORMITY g.
The decree, enrolled, upsets the
foundation of law, violates every rule
of practice and precedent, and destroys
the State.
What judge before this was ever
known to dispose Of a case without a
hearing upon is merits ? 1t is novel
practice, to say the least Of it. If done
before, when and by whom? As |
read the law, perpetual injunctioHs"
are such as form part Of the decree
made ct the hearing upon the merits.
(kerr on Injunctions, chap. >, sec. |,
p. H. See, also, " Great Falls Manu-
featuring Company as. lIenry's admin
istrator." Us Graf, p. $3.50
The State of Virginia. it is clear, was
a necessary party to Parsons's suit.
Without her presence it was Hamlet
absent from the Prince of Denmark.
With Virginia party to this suit the
court had not jurisdiction and to avoid
such dilemma Parsons and the Courts laid
hands upon Auditor Marye and other
State officials. But the device q had
almost said "trick y will not do. BY
indirection Judges Bond and Hughes
are not permitted to lay their QegaD
hands upon this State. Hear Mr.. JUS
tice Matthews. of the Supreme Bench,
in his opinion in the now famous case Of
"Antoni rs. Greenhow." (l07 l.. S.
Reps. 1889
"FoI a breach Of its contract by a State
no remedy Is provided by the Constitution
of the United States against the State
itself. and suit to compel the officers OF n
State to do the acts which constitute per-
Torrance of lis contract by the State is q
sat against The State ITSELF"
Chief-Justice Waite. in Louisiana ~.
Jumnel.' quoted by Justice Matthews as
conclusive upon this point. laws II down
that "when State submits itself without
reservation to the jurisdiction Of court in
particular case, that jurisdiction may be
used TO give full effect TO what the State has
by its act of submission allowed TO be done;
and II the law permits coercion or the pub
lie officers TO enforce any Judgment that
may be rendered, then such coercion may
he employed for that purpose. But thiS is
rery Jar from authorizing the courts. icheR n
state cannot be sued. 10 set up It's jurisdiction
oUer the officers ia charge OI he public
nOncDs so az Ia control them az against the
political pOrer in their O,iminisfrdfiOn ~ the
finances Of the state
What, then, becomes Of Parsons
rs. Marye and ais ?" Are these not
clean-cut principles, enunciated in clear,
sonorouS, and ringing sentences: 1.-THE
wayfarer need not err" need he:
Take the authority cited approyingly
by Judge Hughes, " Cunningham Us.
Macon, &C., Railroad Company" QO9
U. S. Rep, p. 44G.) This was a suit
against Georgia officials, but held in
effect, and, in fact, to be against the
State, and the bill was dismissed in
the lower court and this judgment
affirmed by the Supreme Court Of the
United States. Why did not Judge
Hughes follow this decision? In the
court below Mr.. Justice Woods, dis
missing the bill, said
The hill is, to all intents and purposes. q
suit against the state. IL Is mainly her
property, and not that OF Alfred Colquitt or
]. W. Renfroe, that is TO he affected by the
decree OF this court. IL Is the title OF the
state that IA assailed. The attack Ii not
made against the State directly. bhd through
her o0gcers This indirect way of making
the State party Is Just as open to objection
GSif tie Ndte had been named a deJenddat.'
Justice Bradley, in Board, &C.. rs.
McComb," (92 United States Reports,
page 53l.) says: The objections to
proceeding against State officers by
mandsmus or injunction are-first, that
it is in itself proceeding against the
State itself; and second, that it inter-
feres with the official discretion vested
in the officers
What are Auditor Marye's duties?
To whom tnnef caupfv and cify fraae,,