Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-08-29
INCONSISTENCY.
,,srcoyclraBLT DECISIONS OF THE
nyIrYp STATES SUPREME coS9E
Mr. Stanley Matthews Exposed LOOK
Here upoa This Decision
and on That.
= u. rdlor 40 Dipaleh::

A. v.ry few people have had leisure
q, onportunity 90 study the oissehting
oo;nien of Chief.JaStice Waite and JUS
ices Bradley, Miller, and Gray, which
ru,ysrized the opinion OF the other i've
,uSres in Poindexter rs. Greenhox,
t.ys thought it might be we'll to en-
d,ayor 70 present the matter to the
pnblic in the following piece OF tracing,
:. artists call such work.
II will be recollected that in the case
NJ Marse rs. Parsons it vas deoreed by
lodge Bond that the Auditor Of tue
State Of Virginia, aud the treasurers
and commissioners Of the revenue for
the cities Of Richmond, Norfolk, and
Lynchburg, and their assistants, clerks,
and agents be compelled to accept GER
tain coupons belonging to Parsons from
ary taxpayer who might present them,
lust as Il they were money.
The Supreme Court made short work
Of this decree, declaring II to be with
out precedent, reversing it, aud order
ing the suit to be dismissed. The Court
sad there was no doubt q breach OF
contract. but that the owner Of the cou-
mons had no remedy, because a State
could lot be sued. The opinion was
delivered BY that eminent hsir.splitter,
Mr.. Justice Matthews, in April, 1885.
In March, 1886, a case,
HAGOop VS.. SOUTHERN,
III United States Reports So, iuvolv-
ING the same principle, was decided by
the same tribunal; and as the legislation
ont Of which the case grew has many
points Of similarity TO our debt legisla-
ticn, propose TO discuss it, | hope to
the edifca,ion of the reader.
In 1868 the General Assembly Of
Son,h Carolina pledged the faith and
forAs Of the State to the payment Of
,,;neipal and interest Of bonds to tho
smoup, Of 81 O00,000, to be issued by
The Blue Ridge Railroad Company and
theywere issued accordingly.
On March >. 1872, an act was passed,
70 relieve the State Of the liability thus
incurred, providing that upon the sur
render by the company of the balance
OF the issue OF Salu TWINS
THE STATE TREASURER
should issue in lieu thereof certificates
Of indebtedness, to the amount Of
81 500 zoe. p4yable to bearer and re-
r,ivable for all taxes and other dues Of
the State. except special tax levied TO
IA, interest on the public debt; and
further providing that the State Audi
tor. subsequently the Comptroller Cen
,ral. should levy tax, Of three mills
in the dollar, in addition to other taxa
ton. TO be exclusively used in retiring
the Indebtedness thus created.
In 1873 this power to tax was re-
pealed. the Comptroller was forbidden
10 levy il, and the collecting officers
were forbidden TO receive paymen. of
taxes in the certificates Of indebted
ness. The Blue-Rldge Railroad Com"
many rendered these certificates II pay
ment Of its taxes to tgo county treasu-
rers, and upon their refusal to receive
them, brough; suit before Judge Bond,
being associated with several other
parties who had not rendered these
certificates Of Indebtedness for taxes,
but who bad exchanged railroad guar
anteed bonds for them; all parties
ccmplairipg that the legislation OF
1873 was a violation Of the contract
obligation OF March ,, 1872, and ask
ing a decree FOR specific compliance.
JUDGE BOND DECREED
that the treasurers should receive these
certificates Of indebtedness whenever
and by whomsoeyer rendered fOl
taxes, and should be enjoined from
selling property to enforce the pay
ment Of the tax and that the Comp
troller.General should levy the tax OF
three mills on the dollar.
Upon appeal TO the Supreme Cour!
the decree was reversed and the case
was ordered 10 be dismissed the opln-
ion being delivered, as in Mlr2e u.s.
Parsons, by that eminent ir.sphtter
MIR. Justice Matthews. In the case Of
the railroad it was decided that as The
State was security for 1t, it could not
claim either upon the guaranty or the
certificates issued Ia lieu thereof. (Nt
other party had offered the certificate
for taxes AS TO the order TO the
States officers, il was decided that tho
State was the actual party to the allegcl
contract, and the only party by whom
it could be performed; that though MOI
nominally a party TO the record, 1t va.
the only real party in interest, tn
nominal defendants being the officer.
and agents Of the State, hayin,
no personal interest in the subject
&, matter Of the suit. and defending on.
as representatives OF the State; that ID
- things required by he decree to be don
6 and performed by them are the yer.
things which when done and periOrme,
constitute performance OF the allege'
contract by the State; that the State !
not only the real party to the contro
versy, but the real party against whic
81 relief is sought by the suit; and In
suit is therefore substantially with
the prohibition Of the eleventh amen
ment TO the Constitution.
THE RELIEF ASKED
for will require the party against whor
the process is issued to act contrary :
the positive orders of the supreme p'
liticsl power Of the State, whose cre1
torres they are, and TO which they ar
ultimately responsible in law for wis
they do. The officers ow
duty to the State alone, and have n
contract relations with the bondholder'
They can only act as the State direct
them to act, and hold as the State @
fee,s them to hold-nearly all
hich is quoted from the case OF Loo
sisna rs. Jumel, l07 U. S. 7ll-'2S.
"A broad line Of demarcatiou,
X kys the opinion, " separates from sue
IN ses as the present, lin which the d.
ices require by affirmative official a.
pn on the part Of the defendants IA
rformance Of an obligation which b'