Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-04-21


by the contract will lie. Another case
viz, No. 941, Peasants against Green
how--is covered by the above opinion.
Justice Bradley read . carefully pre-
pared dissenting opinion, in which the
Chief Justice, Justice Miller, and JUS
tice Gray concurred.
The opinion has reference particularly
to Case No. S26--Allen rs. Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad. The fundamental
ground of dissent as set forth by JUS
tice Bradley is that this proceeding and
all other proceedings on these coupons
brought here for review are virtually
suits against the State Of Virginia to
compel specific performance by that
State of her agreement to receive
said coupons in payment of all taxes,
dues, and demands. However just such
proceeding may seem in the abstract,
or however willing the courts might be
to sustain it lift were constitutional, yet,
looking at the case as it really Is, we
regard it as directly repugnant to the
eleventh amendment Of the Constitu-
ton, which declares that the judicial
power Of the United States shall not be
construed to extend to any suit in law
or equity commenced or prosecuted
against any one Of the United States
by citizens Of another State, OF by citi-
zens or subjects Of any foreign State.
The counsel for the bondholders
press upon our attention. the pro-
vision Of the Constitution which de-
clares that no State shall pass any law
impairing the obligation of contract, and
insist that the laws passed by the
Legislature of Virginia forbidding the
receipt of coupons for taxes since the
passage of the act Of 1871 by which
they were made receivable are uncon-
stitutional and absolutely void, and that
no officer or tax-collector Of the State
is bound to regard, but, on the contrary,
is bound to disregard them. Some have
one provision Of the Constitution set up
against the other, and are asked to en-
force that relating to contracts by re-
garaing the individual officers as the
real parties proceeded against and ig-
noring the fact that in the matter OF
receiving coupons in payment of taxes
these officers only represent the State.
BY this technical device it is supposed
that the eleventh amendment may be
evaded. In my opinion, this is not a
sound Interpretation Of that clause of
the Constitution. 1t is con-
tract clause, and when the eley-
enth amendment comes into conflict
the latter has paramount force. 1t
was adopted as an amendment to the
Constitution or operates as IN amend
ment of every part Of the Constitution
to which it is at any time found to be
repugnant. Every amendment Of the
law revokes, alters, or adds something.
1t is the last declared will of the law
makers and has paramount force and ef-
feet. The Constitution still declares
that no State shall pass any law i'm
pairing the obligation of contract, but
the effect of the amendment is that even
if State should pass law impairing
the validity Of its own contract no re-
dress can be had therefor in the Fede-
raj courts. All those who deal with
the State have full notice Of this funda-
mental condition. They know they
must depend on the faith of the State
Just as if no Constitution existed, and
cannot resort to compulsion unless the
State chooses to permit itself to be
sued. Moreover, the eleventh amend
ment is not intended, as it were
jingle Of words, to be slurred over
by cunning subtleries and artificial
methods of Interpretation so as to give
it literal compliance without regard
ing its substantial meaning and pur-
pose. 1t is grave and solemn condi-
ton exacted by the sovereign States for
the purpose Of preserving and vindi-
eating their sovereign right to deal with
their creditors and others propounding
claims against them according to their
own views Of what may be required by
public faith and the necessities Of the
body polite. We have no right,
if we could be disposed, to fritz
ter away the substance OF this
solemn stipulation by any neat and
skilful manipulation Of its words.
We are bound to give it its full and
substantial meaning and effect. All
this litigation in reference to Virginia
bonds and coupons is an attempt,
through the medium of the Federal
courts, to coerce the State Of Virginia
into the fulfilment of her contracts.
There is no question about the validity
of the taxes. They are admittedly
due; an officer is entitled to collect
them; his authority is undlsputed.
Coupons are rendered in payment, not
in money, for they have no quality of
but as a set-of which, as is in
sisted. the State has agreed to allow.
The taxpayer stands on this agree
ment and seeks to enforce it. All suits
for this end are in truth
and reality suits against the State to
compel a compliance with its agree
ment. The set-off is nothing bat
cross-action, and can no more be en-
forced against the State, without its
than a direct action can be.
When set-offs are allowed against a
sovereign State it is always by virtue
Of some express statute.
Officers have no power but what |
The State gives them. They act for |
md on behalf Of the State, and in no |
'ther way. To sue them, therefore, |
because they will not receive coupons |
n payment, is virtually to sue the State.
The sole object is to coerce the State.
10 say otherwise is to talk only for
fleet without regard to the truth Of
hingS. The tax is
lue; no money is rendered. The tax
layer only offers to set off coupons,
which are nothing but due-bills of the
state, and pleads the States COL
ateral agreement to receive them.
This is not money, and bears
10 resemblance TO money. 1t is
imply a promise, and the State, for
easons Of its own, declines to comply
With its agreement in mode and form,
nd forbids its officers TO receive cou-
ons in payment of taxes. The tay-