Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1886-12-14
The EsHhItp EknB,f

for appearing SO frequently before them.
In my last article distinctly marked out
the limits Of the discussion and did not de-
sgn,as you rightly suppose, to consider any
thing beyond.
1t strikes me gou 60 not approach this
subject entirely free from prejudice. You,
like many others, refuse to SEQ the State as
a torong aoer and seem to forget that the re
cress OF wrongs is paramount object in
every enlightened system of Jurisprudence.
l say this because / am sure that ifthe State
were an Individual, no one would be more
ready than yourself to detect and condemn
the wrong involved in the present contro.
versy between the State and her creditors.
The only colorado defence land that is
now overruled) which it was possible for
the State to make in these cases, was the
purely technical one that she is sovereign
and cannot be compelled by suit to pay her
debts. This, you must admit, affords no
answer, and certainly no satisfaction to the
! claim of the coupon holder Naturely then,
he feels the Injustice and seeks q remedy for
it, and he finds it not in coercing the State
or degrading her sovereignty, but in neutral,
izing the injurious effect of an unconstitu.
tional law. That is all.
Now, one greet object of the federal con-
stitution is 10 guarantee certain valuable
rights. That instrument, CARRYING out ills
protested object, forbids Slate to commit
wrong by passing any law impailng the
obligation even other own contracts. When
| ever, therefore, such an attempt is made.
the federal courts, pledged as they are to
administer justice without regard to it's
political or economical bearings, are bound
to see that the unlawful purpose does
not succeed, if it can be defeated
by any legal and practicable meane
Hence, when the State of Virginia,
actuated by wrongful purpose
commanded her treasurers to refuse cou-
pons and collect her taxes in money by
Selling and selling property, the Supreme
Court having in view the benecent pro.
visions of the higher law, resolved to treat
her command rs nullity, and her treasu.
rers thus acting without official authority
judicial action is simply that the State of
Virginia has been prev:ntea from doinq
acrong, so far as prevention was legally pos
bic. Do you object to that?
will now consider some of YOUR proposi.
tions.
You say, "Edmunds' only business con
nection with Barry was in his official cdpaci
ty as treasurer; he did nothing as an indi.
ridual;; in his every act he apas Fauquier's
treasurer, in the discharge of the duties
imposed upon him by the constitution and
laws of Virginia"
Under the ruling in Poinderter as. Green
holp there is very plain distinction, which
you fail to recognize, between the act of the
State and the conduct Of the person assum.
ing to act officially under void statute.
10 such case the State is legally incapable
of performing the legislative act of author
izing and commanding, while the person is
capable of performing the physical act OF
o6eylng and executing. The trespass or
physical wrong is therefore individual and
not State action. Hence, to repeat SUBJ
stantially what has just been said, when the
State seeks to commit wrong by evadng
her obligations and obtaining money by
force from her own creditor, the authority
OF the agent commissioned for this wrong
full purpose is wholly denied by the supreme
law, and if he acts at all he acts as pri
vate individual. AS the State can act only
by agents, the law, in order to prevent the
wrong, will not permit her to constitute an
agent for sucn purpose. And here | must
insist, and you will doubtless agree with
me, that 1t is grossly indecorous to say, as
some persons do, that the motive Of the Su
preme Court in adopting this construction
was merely to usurp jurisdiction, and not
to promote tho ends of substantial Justice.
You say, Mr.. Barry knows that the mo.
ney he received in discharge of his Judgment
came out OF Nirginias treasury" That may
be, but does any one know by what consti
tutional authority it was taken out of the
treasury Hence" you say, Virginia
has returned to Mr.. Barry his tax" Here,
L submit, is glaring fallacy. This payment
was, IN no sense, q return Of the tao to the
taxpayer, but the gift of on indemnity to the
officer out of the general revenue fund of
the Slate. The officer, and not the taxpayer,
was the real beneficiary of the States boun.
ty, for it vaS bounty or voluntary courtesy
and not debt, on the part of the State
You lose sight of the fact that here are two
dlstlnct transactions between two distinct
sets OF parties the officer pays the taspay-
ers Judgment, and, them the State pays the
officer, and that is an indemnity. But does
it make any difference in principle, if the
State chooses in the first instance to become
paymaster for the officer and to deal di.
rectly with the taxpayer? OF course not,
for, however we regard the matter, there is
a third party in interest between the State
and the taxpayer and there is no return of
anything, You argue as If The Taxpayer owed
me oWcer, and the State having paid the
debt, was entitled to be eubrogated to the
right of the officer against the taxpayer,
which is not the case
You cay, "And therefore, in fact, Mr..
Barry has paid no tax" Hero is another
mistake MIR. Barry's money to the amount
of his tax undoubtedly went into the State
treasury 4; this is admitted then why is the
tax not paid? Fit is not there is no escap.
ing the conclusion that the money was his,
even after it got into the treasury, and
should never have been taken from him
and, furthermore, fit was his, it should have
been returned directly to him and not used
to indemnify the officer The State had
no right to apply his money to that purpose.
Finally, you say, Mr.. Edmunds and the
State are one and the same entity" The
United States Supreme Court in Poindexter
vs. Greenhow says emphalically they are
not. Respectfully yours,
SAMUEL d. DAVIES.
Richmond, Dec. II. 1885,
FAILED TO AGREE.-The cases of tho
Commonwealth VS.. Mary Dabney Waller
and Jennie Boggs, charged with grand lar