Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-03-27
Virginia and the Supreme Court.

Virginia and the Supreme Court.
II is our custom to publish all COM
munications correcting mistakes made
by ourselves or our correspondents.
Whilst we do not concedc that Mr..
RoyALL has done that in the following
communication, we publish it
10 fhe Editor Of The Dispatch:
Your issue of this morning contains the
following:
Virginia protested against the Supreme
Court taking Jurisdiction in any case To-
which she was q party. The Democratic
platform denied its right and the people AT
the bailot.box ratified that platform. Inc
Governor. the Legislature. the courts-the
three departments OF the State govern
ment-ali deny the right OF the Supre me
Court TO compel the State of virginia 10
submit TO It's Jurisdiction" -,
In January 1885, the Acknowledgement
OF Virginia moved the supreme Court Oh the
ia which that court decided the law 10 be
what IL is now settled TO be. lie ala TINS
under q written order from tne governor
and the Board OF Public Works as now con-
stituted. The following are extracts from
his motion to advance;
To me Honorable The Supreme Court Of ohe
United States;
eThe State OF Virginia. by her Attorney.
Genera, r. y. Blair, moves the court To adj
vnnce the above EMIT ed causes and deliver
Judgment In the same At day as early as
lis other business and its own convenience
xr,n ...rmtt
!. IL il OF the utmost consequence TO the
collectors of the states taxes for them 10
know whether the state can protect them
IN enforcing collection Of her revenues. Al
though the above cases are not brought
directly against the State Of Virginia. yet
tins suits are against her public officers, aud
the execution OF her revenue laws Is en-
Joined OF stayed. The questions involved
are fgreat public Importance, and are not
confined TO mere disputes or controversies
between the mere nominal parties 10 said
suits: and because OF It's great public i'm
portance petitioner Is led 10 believe that
under the authority OF Garter rs. Greenhow.
p. %, loo y. r., your Honors Will advance
thefe cases upon your docket.
at is obvious that 80 long as the decisions
OF Judge Bond IN the cases OF Hamilton rs.
The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
end SmiWp rs Greenhow remain in force
The state OF Virginia Is fatally crippled In
the collection OF her revenues. aud may be
reduced 20 absolute insolvency. All the
foregoing cases present questions that it IL
W fbe last Importance 20 her To have
speedily determined. She therefore re-
ass OF the Revised Statutes. 10 advance
possible"
u This Is not voluntary and cheerful
suhnlikhion OF her controversy 10 the IA.
preme Court, II 10 hard 10 understand what
wond constitute one. IL 10 wss not u sub
mission 10 the judgment OF that tribunal
then II was because the state OF Virginia
proposed 10 play the game Of" heads win
iailf. you leee." That u. she intended to
abice by the decision II IL went her way,
sud 10 rebel against u IL went tue other
way. The court. In Difference TO her 70.
Quest. did advance the eases. and did
spff6iiy decide them. In the argument OF
Them she employed 10 aid her Attorney.
General the Hon A. n Garland, Attorney.
GENERA OF she United States. and the Hon.
n r. Msir:ek. w. l.. RorALL.
We have never before known Mr.
RoyALL to make such an unfair or
rather unfoundsd argument as the above. |
Il needs no reply. IL answers itself. |
He sued Virginia. or her officers, car
led tho cases 10 the Supreme Court, |