Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-06-14
Hon. J. Randolph Tucker and the su
nrene Canrt OF tho United btaIes.

preme Cosrt OF the United states.
TO the Editor Of The Dispatch:
In the June No. Of the North American
ReVjetp. and in reply 10 The question What
IS tbe meaning OF the late decision OF the
Supreme Court in the hGbedS-oorpus cases
from Virginia? Give me some idea OF It's
historic relations as a constitutional ques-
tion,O Hon. j. Randolph Tucker discusses
that question, and concludes as follows:
"Thus this great decision has made set
Element Of this important question, and has
established the immunity OF the States from
all suits by citizens Of other States or OF
foreign States, whether directly or indI-
rectly, by suing their officers, when the effect
is 10 cocrce State will through judicial pro-
cedure.
"This case will be a leading case and a
judicial landmark for all time TO come, In
protecting the rights OF the States from The
cocrciye control OF Federal courts and in
conserving their autonomy In the manage
ment and direction OF their own internal
affairs"
Against these conclusions offer the fol-
lowing extract from the opinion oil the
Court
"But this is not in any way to impinge
upon the principle which iusuties suits
against individual defendants who, under
color OF unconstitutional legislation by the
State are guilty OF personal trespasses and
wrongs, nor to forbid suits against officers In
their official capacity either to arrest or direct
their official action by injunction or man
damus where such suits are authorized by
law an the act TO be done or omitted IS
purely ministerial, in the performance or
omission OF which the plaintiff has legal in
T.. - l..al .lf oil nl %
we repeat what was said By this Court IN
Board Of Liquidation Us. McComb, 92 u. =,
531-541': "A State without its consent can
not be sued by an individual, and a court
cannot substitute its own discretion for that
OF executive officers in matters belonging TO
the proper jurisdiction Of the latter. But II
has been well settled that when plain
official duty requiring no exercise OF
discretion is TO be performed and perform
ance Is refused, any person who Will sustain
personal injury by such refusal may have a
mandamus TO compel its performance; and
when such duty Is threatened 10 be violated
by some positive Official act any person WHO
will sustain personal injury thereby, for
which adequate compensation cannot be bad
at law, may have au Injunction TO prevent IL.
In such cases the writS OF mandamus ana
induction are somewhat cOrrelative 10 each
other. In either case, il the officer plead the
authority Of an unconstitutional law for the
non. performance or violation OF his duty, il
will not prevent the Issuing Of the writ. An
Unconstitutional law will be treated by the
courts rs null and void" An example and
illustration OF this class will be found in
" Seibert rs. Lewis" 100 L. S, PSI
"NOr need it be apprehended that the
construction OF the eleventh amendment APP
piled in this case will in anywise embarrass
or obstruct the execution OF the laws OF the
United ctatesin cases where the officers OF a
State are guilty OF acting IN violation OF them
under color OF its authority. The Govern
ment OF the United States, IN the enforce
ment OF its laws, deals with all persons
within its territorial jurisdiction as midi
Yduals owing obedience 10 its authority.
The penalties Of disObedience may be visited
upon them, without regard 10 the character
in which they assume to act or the nature OF
the exemption they may plead In
justification. Nothing can be inter.
posed between the individual and the
obligation he owes to the Constitution and
the laws Of the United States which can
shield or defend him from their Just all
tbority. and the extent and limits OF that
authority the Government OF the United
States, by means Of lis judicial power, in
terprets and applies for itself. II, therefore,
an individual, acting under the assumed an
thority Of a Stale rs one OF its officers and
under the color OF rs laws, comes into con
| Gict with the superior authority OF valid
law II the United States he is stripped oil
his representative character and subjected III
| his person to the consequences OF his midi
yidual conduct. The State has no power &c
! impart to him any immunity from response
| bility 10 the supreme authority OF the United
States.
"In contradiction to these classes OF cases
for the reasons gwen, we adiudge the suit OF
Cooper and Others Us. Marye and Others IN
which the injunctlOns were granted against
the present petitioners. 10 be in substance
and in law suit agains. the State OF Nir
| gina. Ii is therefore within the prohibition
Of the eleventh amendment to the Constitu
| lion. BY the terms OF that provision II Is
case to which the aiudcial power OF th'
/ United states does not extend. The Circul
Court was without jurisdiction to entertain
! It.. All the proceedings in the exercise o.
| the jurisdiction which is assumed are nut
| and void. The orders fOrbiddlng the pell
| TONERS TO bring suits, and for bringing
which they were adiudged in contempt OF IL
authority, IL had no power TO make. TIL
orders adjudgng them in contempt wer
equally void, and their imprisonment Is with
out authority OF law. IL - ordered. there
fore, that the prisoners be discharged"
From the above think il will appear tina
! a taX-Dayer who tenders coupons and /
levied upon before or after judgment In
State court can sue the officer OF the state il
a Federal court.
This being so, I submit that the case is no
settled, and | venture the remark that
never viii be until two things are done
First, that the Supreme Court return 10 II
decision in AntOai rs. GreenkOio-that ."
suit to compel the officers OF a State to d.
the acts which constitute The peiformanc
OF its contract by the state is q suit agains
the State ITSELF; and, second, that 1t re
nounce the usUrped claim TO revise the con
tracts OF State.
"NOt settled" / mean so far as the las
and the decisions OF the supreme Court nov
20. But believe the State OF Virginia ca
settle ii when her Legislature goes about
IN the right way. FRANK u. RuFFN.