Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-10-15
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. Is, 1886.
Time 10 Call q halt.

The Supreme Court Of the United States
ought as soon as possible 10 reverse all its
rulings heretofore made in regard to that
clause Of The Federal Constitution which
forbIds o State from passing ans law inn
pairing the obligation Of contracts. That
clause was not intended by the trainers OF
The Constitution TO apply to the contracts
OF the States themselves, but only TO the
contracts Of persons. ono State shall pass
anv law impairing the obligation OF con-
tracts between PERSONS" is what 1t was in
tended 70 mean. II was never even thought
OF that the States were 10 be forbidden TO
pass laws impairing the obligation OF their
own contracts.
But even IL the reverse OF all we have
lust said were true, and the trainers OF the
Federal Constitution did intend TO allow to
the Federal courts the power to compel
the several States TO pay their debts, the
eleventh amendment "changed all that"
As was said in the dissenting opinion in
the Virginia coupon cases by Chief.Justice
WAITE and the other three dissenting JUS
fees. the eleventh amendment is not mere
"iungle OF words" II was intended to
remove all doubt as 10 the right Of State
10 be sued. Before that amendment be-
came a part OF the Constitution the State
could be sued by anybody. That amend
ment was meant and expected to set all the
the States free from suits. 1t provides in
express terms that
1.-THE judicial power Of the United States
shall not be construed TO extend 10 any suit
IN law or equity commenced or prosecuted
against one Of the United States by citizens
of another State, or by citizens or subjects
of any foreign State"
That language includes all the world OF
persons except States own citizens. No
citizen OF another one OF the United states
can sue Virginia. No citizen or subject OF
any foreign State can sue her. And yet she
j. sued day after day In the Federal courts !!
Judge BoND. in bis opinion in the case OF
A. NJ. Willis Us. the treasurer OF Kappa.
hammock county, did not heSasie moment
TO say that "the Supreme Court OF the
United States has decided that this
was contract between The State and
The coup9n.bolder." Where did the
Supreme Court find a clause Of the Federal
Constitution authorizing 1t to bind State
by it, decision in a ease between "he State
and the coupon.holder ?" Yes, "the State
and the coup0n-hOlder are Judge BOSD's
own words, following the decisions OF the
Supreme Court. We quote his words
again:
1.-THE tender Of q coupon is the tender Of
n receipt OF 80 much money already in the
State Treasury. Ii the money represented
DIV the coupon IL not in the Treasury, It Is
rs much The duty of the State TO have it
there Is it is TO support the public schools
The State Treasury belongs TO the State,
the eleventh amendment says. and cannot
be touched by Federal court. Note,
nevertheless. that here is case nOminally
and pretendedly against WILLIAM q. MIL
LER, in which the STATE of Virginia is told
by Federal court what her duty is. And
vet the eleventh amendment was framed
for the express purpose OF preventing
States from being sued.
The Supreme Court Of Appeals OF Nir
plnia decided that school taxes could not b'
paid in coupons. AFederal court reverse
that decision, and makes the State OF Viz
ginis accept coupons for school taxes.
And yet we all know that State cdnno
be sued.
There are already four Justices out OF th'
nine on the bench OF the Supreme Court o
the United states who stand ready to re
verse that courts rulings in the Virgins
coupon cases. and to decide that under tn
Federal Constitution no such suits can b
brought. We trust that GROVER CLEvE
LAND will whenever a Justice dies or re
signs see TO IT that no usurper Of iurisdic
ton shall fill that exalted station.