Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-02-06
sATURpAY....rEBRUARY 6, 1886.
Stand Firm.

sons who ought 10 DC auione 'n0 i"''
10 run up the white flag. The men,
hers of the General Assembly, how
ever. are, most Of them, fully de-
termined never to surrender the right
of the State to control her own reve-
nues. They stand firm upon the eiev-
enth amendment, and intend to uphold
the rights of the State by every method
allowable under the Constitution OF the
United States. 1t is Virginia's mis-
fortune to have had her cases de-
cided by the creatures of partisan
Administration" the cankers," to
quote SHAKESPEARE contrariwise, "ot
a long war;" All other consider
atoms must with them yield to
the oyermastering one Of establish
ing q grand consolidated, centralized
despotism. Right, justice, constitu-
lions. laws, all, oil must be over
slaughed or overlooked in the supreme
effort to make the Federal Government
a terror TO the constituent States and
their citizens. AS there are northern
men reading our paper every day who
have not thought 1t necessary to post
themselves upon this question, we will
quote once more the eleventh article of
amendments to the Federal Constitu-
ton. 1t reads as follows;
1.-THE judicial power Of the United
States shall not be construed to extend
to any suit in law or equity commenced
or prosecuted against one of the United
States by citizens OF another State, or
by citizens OF subjects Of any foreign
State"
Article H., section Ill, paragraph l,
provided, before amended as above, that
the judicial power should extend to
salts between a State and citizens of
another State. 1t also provided, as it
still does, that it should extend to suits
between citizens Of the same State
claiming lands under grants Of different
States-which Of course by implication
forbids any other suits between citizens
Of the same State to be entertained by
the Federal courts.
In violation Of these provisions Of the
Constitution, me decisions of last Mon
day were rendered. Those decisions
were made against the State Of Vir-
ginia, which, in the opinions, is con-
stantly spoken of just as if it were
party to the suits.
But the Supreme Courtisrepresented
here in Richmond as having decided
that if taxpayer tenders coupons in
payment Of his taxes, and the collecting
officer refuses to receive them, the tax
payer may sue him and recover dam
ages il afterwards he levy upon the tax
payers property; and this, whether
the coupons have been verified accord
ing to law or not. We insist upon it
that that tribunal has made no such de-
cision. That court has never decided
that the State must accept counterfeit
coupons nor that the coupons need
not be proved to be genuine as the law
requires nor that it was the duty OF
the State to prove the coupons not to be
genuine. No court in the United States
has ever required a negative to be proved
in such cases.
The claim is preposterOus. The Su-
preme Court decided three years ago
that the act Of January l4th, 1882, was
valid enactment. We quoted yes
terday from the opinion of the Court in
that case. 1t decided last year that the
coupons must be proved to be genuine.
We have before us now the full opinion
OF the Court in allen ct al. rs. The
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. The
Court said:
at is admitted by the parties in the
record that the coupons are genuine,
though not verified as required by the
act of January Ia, 1882"
So in CAefia Us. Taylor, and in al
the cases in which the court has seemed
TO leave il to be inferred that the cou
pons need not be proved to be genuine
the defendants had failed to plead tina
the coupons had not been verified, anC
20 lost their cases.
All the cases Of last year, or mos
OF them, were decided in dtcidins Pom
dC9ter rs. Greenhoic I; and we are re
ferred TO that as showing that the cou
pons need not be verified. Very well
In that case, the Courts opinion is ex.
sc,ly the other way. IL said
.'By an act OF January Ia, 1882, tn,
General Assembly OF that State modi
fed the proceedings in maadamus IL
such eases so as to require the tax
payer first 10 pay bis taxes 10 money
and then, the coupons rendered hariRs
M another proceeding been determined
10 be genuine, be was entitled to judg
ment upon the mandamus requiring
them 10 be received in payment 0
The taxes. and the money previously
paid refunded"
That, you will reply, is only a de
scrip,ion Of the enactment of Januar,
Ia. 1892. Yes, that is just what it is
That is the Supreme Courts descrip-
tien of our Virginia Law. Now here
Is what the same Supreme Court said
about that law last Monday:
q The right Of the plaintiff to pay
his license Ia coupons Is affirmed by the
opinion in the case Of Royal 20. The