Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-03-27
The Coupon Gases.

lie coupon OdStss
There is nothing else that ought to
be SO interesting to the people of Nir-
sinis at this time as the proceedings at
Washington in the various cases from
Virginia now undergoing argument in
the Supreme Court Of the United States.
Mr.. GARLAND pressed the right
point in his speech Of Wednesday list
namely, that the State Of Virginia is a
real party in all those suits. II is just
as certain that such is the fact as it is
that there is an eleventh article Of
amendments to the Federal Constitu-
iion.
Mr.. EvARTs made poor effort. 1t
would have suited jury much better
than the august tribunal to which It was
addressed. We are glad the provincial
lam Of New York has thus been re-
buked in the person OF him whom
every New Yorker regards as the
shesd of the American bar ''--as the
man who ought to have been appointed
Chief Justice Of the United States in
stead OF Mr.. WAITE, Now contrast
EvAgTs with GARLAND, or ROBERT
SON, or STAPLES. Wen wager sour
dukedom 'gainst a bcggarly denier "
that EyAaTs cant hold his own ex-
cept in mere volubility with either of
those gentlemen.
EvARTs played the part Of SHY
LOOK. If he had been trying to bring
SHYLOcK TO the minds Of the court and
the audience, he could hardly have said
anything else than what be did say.
The eleventh amendment appeared to
him TO be Of no consequence. The
flesh. s'the pound Of flesh," was the
burden Of bis argument, if argument it
may be called. lie failed, totally
failed. to meet the point that State
cannot be compelled to pay its debts.
And yet, as MIR. GARLAND said,
this is the real point involved in all the
cases now being heard in Washington.
The morality Of the State law forbidding
the tax-colleetors to receive coupons for
taxes is question which no Federal
court has a right to consider. The or
ganic law Of the republic provides that
no State shall be sued for debt as vir-
ginia is sued in those cases in Federal
court, and no Federal court has the
right 10 entertain such suit. Away
with the fiction that to sue States
officers is not to sue the State.
Mr.. EvARTs relies upon that clause
of the Federal Constitution which pro-
hibits State from passing any law i'm
pairing the obligation of contracts. But
Mr.. EvARTs must concede that if the
eleventh amendment is to be respected
and enforced, that clause Of the Consti-
tuition must be construed as the trainers
of the Constitution intended it to be
They intended it to apply
to contracts between persons. If con-
strued as they meant it to be construed,
il would be construed as if it read, "No
State shall pass any law impairing the
obligation Of contracts between per-
sons"
But il we admit that the Supreme
Court has jurisdiction in such cases as
those now under consideration, and that
the clause Of the Federal Constitution
relative to contracts was meant to apply
TO States contracts, then the funding
act Of 1871 under which were issued
the coupons Mr.. EvARrs wishes to
force the State to receive for taxes was
and is an Unconstitutional act. The
very first section Of tina, act provided as
follows:
"Nor shall any interest be paid upon
any. part or portion Of said debt except
as hereinafter provided
Here was an " obligation (" impaired
By the State, If Mr.. EyARTs's teach
ings be true, and every one Of the cou-
pons he is now seeking TO force into the
Treasury Of Virginia was issued in vio-
lAtisn Of contract. The law under
which Mr.. EyAeTs's coupons were is
sued WAS plsinly just such violation
Of the Federal Constitution as he has
discovered in the coupon-killing acts Of
the Virginia Legislature passed since
1871. And We submit to the
good sense Of every lawyer in the
United States the proposition that
bond is as much the subject
Of contract as is coupon; and that
spromise To pay interest upon . bond
Is just as inviolablc an obligation as a
promise to receive coupon for taxes.
VIII Mr.. EyAETs pretend to say that
the Supreme Court Of the United States
can compel Virginia TO pay her bondss
Not he. Nor viii any other lawyer.
They all admit that il would be usur-
pssisa Of authority for that tribunal TO
attempt to do SO. And it Is equally q
usurpation Of authority for ii to attempt
TO make the State pay her coupons.
surely . court which has no right to
compel the principal Of the debt TO be
paid has no right to compel the interest
Of the same debt to be paid.
- -
.SPeskias Of Me-. MANNrNo's recent
ststensDtsa reported by an interviewer,
The Washington Post says thst the peo-
pc viii be satisfied for the present with |
Bssh "a adjustment Of duties as viii OBJ
viafe t. accumulation Of any excessiye