Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-04-24
The Decisions.

Inc Dectsioho.
We mentioned yesterday that the
New York Tribune had on wednes-
ds,--two days AFTER the United States
Supreme Court had rendered its de-
cisions in the Virginia coupon cases
indicated in an editorial that in those
cases there had been involved some
thing more than mere question Of dol
lars and cents. That paper coolly says
that "the gross injustice and shame
lsssness Of the policy which Virginia
has tried to pursue have perhaps blind
ed many to the peculiar difficulties oil
The legal question involved and then
adds:
at was the duty Of the Supreme
Court to decide. not whether Virginia
had spy moral right to repudiate, but
whether Virginia as one Of the States
of this Union had the constitutional
power to repudiate. Under the elev-
enth amendment Of the Constitution, it
Is expressly provided that the judicial
mower Of the United States shall not be
construed to extend to any suit in law
or equity begun or prosecuted against
any one of the United States by citizens
of another State"
This last was the only question that
the Supreme Court had the right to pass
upon. As the dissenting opinion so
clearly shows, and as'evsrybody ought
to know, the eleventh amendment,
which absolutely forbids State to be
sued as Virginia was sued in the cases
recently before that tribunal, was added
to the Constitution in 1913, and there
fore overrides any portion of the Con-
stitution as it previously existed which
conflicts with that amendment. The
amendment is the latest expression of
the public will. The provision forbid
ding the States to pass any law impair
Ing the obligation Of contracts was by
that amendment limited to contracts be-
tween persons. Any State can pass law
impairing the obligation of its own
contracts. If not, how did Mississippi
repudiate millions Of dollars Of her
debt? How did North Carolina and
other southern States compel their
creditors to come to terms? Why has
not West Virginia been compelled to
pay the fifteen millions of Virginia's
debt turned over to her by this State
in 1871? II is clear, therefore, that
these recent decisions of the Supreme
Court were based upon a provision of
the Constitution that has no life in it so
far as suits against State are
concerned. II was q clear case Of
usurped jurisdiction, and will inevitably
be SO pronounced before many years by
an honest bench Of justices. Such
wrongs cannot and viii not be per-
mitted to go unrighted. The sober
second thought Of the people is never
wrong and alweys efficient. The north
ern States will before long awake to
the perils with which these decisions
have surrounded them. At the KELLEY
banquet on Wednesday night last Go
vernon CAMERON most happily phrased
the prediction which he made and
which we would here repeat If we
could do it in his own words. The
idea was that the Supreme Court
would be respected, yet the will
Of the people of Virginia in regard
to her debt would be carried out. This
Of course can be accomplished only by
means whose use is admissible under
the Constitution itself. "Truth
crushed TO earth shall rise again T" in
virtue OF her inherent strength.
The State can safely refuse to pay
any Of her bonds. And yet the Su.
preme Court decides that she cannot re.
fuse to pay the coupons cut from the
same bonds! Was ever such an illogi.
cal decision rendered before?
The coupous are good only in the