Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-02-18
wEDNEsDAY.FEBRUARY Is, 1885.
Judge Hughes's Opinion.

Judge Hughes's Opinion.
We present this morning Judge
HUGHEs's opinion in the case of Par
sons rs. the Commonwealth. 1t is IN
genicusly phrased. and the conclusions
clalorately but by no means satiSiac-
torily worked out. 1t affords us no
pleasure TO criticisc such paper but
il is our bounden duty to do so. Judge
HUGHES himself was but recently on
our side of the question, and has rather
argued the points for Judge BOND than
for himself. What pity il is that he
did not adhere to his original opinion
as pronounced in the Baltimore and
Ohio Railroad Company case and have
this PARSONS case certified to the
United States Supreme Court for final
decision.
In the first place. the case is moot
case. Judge IlUGHEs admits that PAR
SONS had never rendered his coupons in
payment of any taxes, &C., but assuming
that the Auditor would refuse to re-
ceive them. PARSONS brought his suit
to cnjoin the Auditor from refusing
to receive them " PARSONS had
nothing TO complain of; lac owed no
taxes to the State; he is merely Il phi
lantlropist who brings suit for the ben
eft of the human race. II was not his
own but other peoples taxes that PAR
SONS wanted to pay. What right has
court TO entertain such a suit as
that? Read Judge HUGHES: He
(PARsONs) lis seeking to render his
securities available That's all and
he uses United States Circuit Court
AS his instrument. He has made ar
Engagements with sundry taxpayers.
And he asks that court to perfect these
arrangements for him lie asks
for "an injunction restraining them
from refusing to receive -, And
court of justice grants his prayer.
We state the facts in these terms in
order to show the abSurdity OF the
whole proceeding. PARSONS brought
D this suit, not TO compel the Auditor to
receive coupons from himself, but to
compel him to receive them from some
person or persons unknown to him and
unknown to the court. And yet a cir
cult court of the United States enter
tains his petition
But that is by no means the worst
feature of the case. The reader who
has been puzzled to know why PAR
SONS applied for an injunction instead
Of mandamus, will find u satisfactory
answer in Judge llUGHES'S opinion.
The State law takes away the right to
a mandamus in such cases. and the
Federal courts conform to the State
practice. Therefore the court could
not grant mandamus commanding
the Auditor to receive coupons for
taxes. and so reSOrtcd to the in
junction and commanded the Auditor
not TO refuse to rece're the coupons
for taxes A plain, open. confessed
evasion of State law 10y United
States circuit court. Think Of it.
The law says you shall not command
the Auditor TO receive coupons for
taxes. Do you obey the law, or evadc
it and set il at naught, when you com
mand the Auditor not to refuse to re-
ceiye coupons for taxes: What is the
law worth that can be thus eyadcd:
Where could a judges wits have been
who could be led astray by such de-
vice:
We beg leave to say just here that
the Federal Constitution forbids any
State from passing law impairing
the obligation OF contracts, mot "of
her cOntracts.'') Mississippi repudi-
ated her bonds. but no Federal court
ever said that that was a violation of
the Federal Constitution. Any State
can repudiate her debts that chooses to
do so. Virginia need never pay one Of
her bonds IL she doesn't choose to pay
them. Not even Judge BOND or judge
HuGHEs will contend that she can bc
made TO pay them. And if not bonds.
why coupons: Because she promised
to pay them: OF course She promised
to pay them; but Of course she made
an equally solemn and binding prom
Use to pay her bonds.
Judge HUGHEs quotes hardly one
authority that suStains the decision Of
Judge BOND. They all lack some
thing. Here is a specimen. The Su-
preme Court of the United States says
Whenever it can be clearly shown
that the State is ain indispensable party
to enable court 10 grant the relief
sought, il will refuse to take jurisdic-
ton"
Surely the State is an "indispen-
sable party in suit that threatens to
render her bankrupt.
In the Texas case, the court saws in
express terms that il did not order the
Governor TO perform any act. Under
that decision no mandamus could be is
sued against Mr. MARyE commanding
him 10 receive coupons. And it is
hardly 10 be presumed that the Supreme
Court will allow an inferior tribunal to
go further than i. did, or will allow
that ruling to be eyaded by resort to
a negative mandamus in the shape Of
q mandatory injunction.
In the Louisiana case the court re-