The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1885-02-26
judicial Usurpation. .,

Judicial Usurpation.
We hear much cutlery of late against the
usurpation of jurisdiction by Federal
courts and there are many who think it a
great outrage upon State rights that suits
against the revenue officers of a State
should be allowed to be entertained by the
Federal courts. State governments in
these modern times are not the august,
serene, and digniled entities which they
once were but were they ever so exalted
in responsibility and majesty, they are but
governments, and there is not govern
ment in the civilized world, except perhaps
the autocrat of the Russias, that may
not be sued in a court of justice. True,
they are not sued except by their own con-
sent. Nor has Virginia been sued except
by her own consent.
The Federal constitution was grant of
powers by the States to the Federal gov
eminent. This grant of powers was chiefly
the work of Virginia. No State was more
instrumental than she in establishing
the national constitution. In that instru-
ment Virginia granted to Congress the
power to establish such Federal courts as
might be thought necessary and expressly
granted jurisdiction to these courts of all
eases arising under the constitution and
laws of the United States, and between
citizens of different States.
1t is under this express grant from Vir-
ginia to the Federal courts that they exer-
else jurisdiction in cases arising under the
constitution and laws of the United States.
One Of the classes of cases thus defined
are those arising between citizens of an
other State and citizens Of Virginia. An
other class of these cases are those arising
through any violation of the constitution
and laws of the United States.
No one can deny that the cases recently
decided by the United States circuit court
were cases belonging to one or the other
of the two classes just mentioned. Vir-
ginia has consented to be sued, and that
her officers and citizens may be sued in
Federal courts in those classes of cases.
w III oily lIUCulSOuU etul lOttOOAdDlO LietiA
insist, therefore, that any indignity is put
upon her, when, by her own consent,
granted in q noble and solemn instrument,
a question of legal right, in which she is
interested. or is party, is tried in Fed
eral court
| These very questions of State eGignity
and State pride were raised and discussed
| by our ancestors hundred years ago, in
the convention of Virginia that was called
to decide whether Virginia would ratify
the Federal constitution. They were dis
cussed ably and exhaustiyely by the best
intellects and most renowned patriots OF
the State. They were decided by those
great men. Virginia adopted the consti
tuition of the United States, which was
nothing but a grant of powers. She
amongst other things, granted III that
instrument that jurisdiction to the Fed
eral courts which has been alluded to
which is occasionally exercised, and which
was brought into requisition in the recent
cases. involving the constitutionality Of
her legislation repudiating her contract te
receive coupons for taxes. To raise the
question of State dignity and State pride
in such cases now, is to raise it q hundred
years too late.
Does anyone suppose that the Fedora
courts go out into the community and
drum up suits in order to grasp and reve
in jurisdiction which is distasteful tC
the men who complain a hundred years
too late of their fancied usurpations
This is hardly so. The judges of the courts
know nothing Of the suits until they are
brought up in some form for hearing o.
entered on the dockets for trial. Then, il
is not matter of choice with them whether
to exercise jurisdiction or not. If under
the constitution and laws they have juris
diction, they are under the necessity Of
exercising it. They are bound by theil
oaths and every other consideration O.
duty to exercise it. Nay, the opinion o.
the individual judge may be against tin
jurisdiction yet, if the decisions OF the
higher courts are in favor of it he is bount
to subordinate his own opinion to author
ity and precedent, and to exercise it. II
exercising it, he has no power to declare
what he thinks the law ought to be, bu
must declare what it is, and enforce i
accordingly.
A few of us are not so young as not tt
retain some recollection of the great con
troversy in Mississippi arising out of he
attempt to repudiate her debt. Ii WI
recollect Alright, the equities were witt
the State, her bonds having been issued il
violation of some positive provision of hel
State constitution. Popular feeling wa
all in favor Of reputation. The people
were almost unanimously determined no
to pay the debt. The Supreme Court o.
the State consisted of three supreme
judges. An election Of two judges by the
people of the State came on in the midst
of the Reputation excitement. Two can
didates planted themselves squarely on thu
reputation platform, and committed them
selves to reputation in the most unre
served manner. Yet what was the result
+ When those two judges went upon the
| bench and took the judicial oath, that they
| would declare the law as it is and enforce
it without fear, favor or affection, the.
had to rule, and they did rule, that thu
State was bound to pay the debt, by thu
law relating to contracts as held by all the
courts of the civilized world, and thai
their own previous views as to the equi
ties Of the particular case, could not bt
applied. The State thereupon ceased tt
repudiate and compromised the debt, Oh
terms accepted by her creditors, and faith
fully fulfilled by herself.
The Harrisonburg papers announce the
death of Mr.. Levi Byrd, former jailor Of
Rockingham, and at the time of his death
Commissioner of Revenue for Contra
District. He was brave Confederate
soldier, and lost q leg during the war. AS
citizen, public officer, husband, father and
a faithful and consistent member Of the
| Methodist Church, he met every duty OF
T.. os1 Oh,