Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-04-05
Observation-Disclosures ., 1888.


! he Old COnNCt.
81 believe Tint THIS Government can
not endure permanently half slave and
half free" Sod Mr.. LINCOLN in 1875.
His allusion was of course 10 the fact
that not the Government but some OF
the States had the institution Of slavery
and some had 1t not. He did not believe
that the Government could "endure per
manenly" under such a condition OF
things. IL was the same "lrreprcsNble
conflict" to which Mr.. SEWARD referred
about the same time.
The institution OF slavery was weaker
than the Government, and gave way be
fore the armies Of the United States.
The States proved 10 he powerless as
AGAINST the Federal Government. Men
rushed to arms to preserve 1.-the best
Government the world ever saw, and,
without intending it, to destroy the
States.
In the sense in which Mr.. LINCOLN
intended his remarks TO be understood
that is. that there was sn irrcpressible
conflict between slavery and voluntary
scrvitude- the contest ended at APP
pomattox Courthouse in 1850. But in
another sense, the irropressible conflict
still goes on. The Union cannot exist with
one half the States free TO govern them
selves and the other half bound in chains.
No letters can he forged for Virginia
which viii not bc used to bind Nassa-
chusetts whenever the occasion shall
present itself. Louisiana cannot he de-
priyed Of any rights by the Federal
courts which those courts will not also
take from Iowa at some future day.
An illustration Of the subject Of this
article is now Afforded in conflict which
is going on in Iowa. The Philadelphia
r. lcgr0ph states the case as follows;
THE United States District Court -
Judge Brewer on the bench-being ap-
p.alcd 10 by the Pullman Pal&ce-Cr
COMPANY. decided that the company Was
not liable to taxation under iowa la0s.
Notwithstanding tins decision, the Gov
ernor Of Iowa and his council decided
for themselves that 1t was their duty 10
OBEY the laws Of iowa. and proceeded To
levy upon tie Pullman people not
v,th,tanding judge Brewers decision.
Thereupou the Federal Judge issued
Fl writ of maudlmus commanding the
Governor and his council TO appear
before him and give any reasons, II
they have such, why perpetual lnIunc-
lion Rlould not issue against them. but
tie Governor and council meet tins
move bv deciding that Judge Brewer had
10 authority III the premises which they
were under any Obligations to respect,
and refused 10 obey the mandamus. The
question now is, What is Judge Brewer
going 10 do to maintain his authority m
the premises? HeretOfOre-especlally
OF late years--such conflicts as
this between the Federal courts and
State authorities have been mixed up
with matters that have appealed to the
emotions Of the average citizen quite as
much as TO his reason, and as a cOnse-
0uence there have been few cases whore
"a direct issue Of legal authority has been
made as il has in this Iowa case. In tins
case. however, there IS 10 question
of a Shareholders rebellion or OF a
latelv-rebellous State endeavoring 10
evade the payment Of its just debts, but
g plain challenge of the right OF fede-
raj district Judge to control the action OF
State government.
Ef,rrr,v.,a rap,,iraq hnr officers
TO sue such persons as refuse TO pay their
taxes in money. Judge BOND imprlson-
ell several Virginia officials tor having
obeyed that law but the Supreme Court
Of the United States overruled Judge
BoNDs decision. aud set the prisoners
free. The Virginia case and tdc Iowa
case seem to be somewhat alike
and we shall await with Interest
the result of the contest between
Julce BREWER and the loyal State
Of Iowa. What a burlesque upon our
supposed form of government 1t would
be II mere district Judge Of Fedora
court should be sustained by the Su
prcne Court OF the United states III en-
Joining "soveraign State. A rare
sovereign that would BE-, truly. Iowa
without knowing it, fought valiantly
from 1851 - 1850 to enable the Federal
Government thus to lord j; over the
States. Forit is IS certain as that the SUN
OF two and two is four that before 1861
10 Judge Of any Federal court, high or
low, would have vcntured thus ~ treat a
STATE. The Court of Appeals OF Virginia
once refused years before the war be
tween the States 10 respect the mandate
Of tue Supreme Court of the Unitee
States ia a case which the State cour
held that il had "a right b. decide finally
It's decision proved, too, 10 be final
for no attempt was made 10 compel tn,
State court to reverse its decision
VIVA. State court would dare TO be guilty
Of contempt of the United States Su,
pTeme Court now?
The decision IN the Virginia contemp'
cases viii be followed in the Iowa case
or else Virginia has not yet passet
through all her troubles.