Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-12-10

property as delinquent for It's taxes ior
the years 1874, 1877, 10, 80, 81, o.
'S3, or from in any other manner ,'es
ing II in any respect IS II It's sa'o 'ss
had not been fully paid and discharged
in money ON the 18th day Of May, 1889.
And the Court doth further adjudee,
order. and decree that the complainant
paid It's tax due the State OF virginia
for the wears 1874, II, 10, 80, 81
,s2. $50. as described in the bill, on the
18th day of May, 1885, with the money
and coupons therein named, and 1t hav-
ing fled the same with the clerk OF TINS
court. il is ordered that he forthwith
make and deliver to it his receipt there
for, which shall express upon Its iace
that il was given by the order OF 'niS
court, and that it is evidence that 'ns
complainant's said tax has been pa'a
and discharged in full. ,,..
And this Court doth further adJuose'
order. and decree that the deiendah. 10
execute and file in the papers oil TINS
cause his full and complete receipt lot
said tax. as il the same had been paid
IN money /; and leave is given him upon
so doing to withdraw the money anu
coupons aforesaid.
And It is also adjudged, ordered
and decreed that the complainant re-
cover of the defendant its costs herein'
and that il have execution therefor.
ROBERT W. HUGHEs, Judge,
Richmond, December 8, 1889.
Mr.. STAPLES will have in the above
decree good grounds for asking the Su-
preme Court of the United States to re-
spect the eleventh amendment. 1t
dwarfs the State into utter insignih-
canoe. Surely State sovereignty has
become a burlesquc when the lowest
Federal court can force State to accept
coupons for taxes, compel her to pay
costs. and make her file a receipt in
that court for money which she has
never received. In fact, in the case be-
fore us the Court ordered and decreed
that the plaintiff had paid its taxes
which is as if the Court should order
and decree that twice three is five, or
that the moon is made of green cheese,
or that the plaintiff had done any other
act which it had not done.
We have read Judge HrCHEs'S
opinion with great care. 1t undertakes
to show. and does show, that he fol-
lows the Supreme Court in asserting
jurisdiction in such cases, though the
State is the real party, and cannot be
sued. From habit we say cannot be
sued" though the decision under con-
shows that Virginia may be
sued by anybody and everybody who
chooses to do so.
All these erroneous decisions are
based upon a false assumption-the
assumption that the Constitution allows
suits to be brought against State be-
cause that instrument provides that the
judicial power Of the United States
; hall extend to all cases arising under
the Constitution and laws. Following
Judge llUGHEs's example when he
says that the Supreme Court will yet
see that he was right in the PARSONS
case. we will take the liberty to say
that the Supreme Court will yet learn
and decide that no suit against a State
can arise under a Constitution which
forbids State to be sued, except suits
which in terms are authorized else
where in the Constitution-that is,
suits brought by another State. To
assume jurisdiction in any other case
is to usurp jurisdiction.