Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1890-01-30
COMMUNICATED
The State Debt

Important decision of the u. S. Supreme Court
that may hare some effect on Virginia Coil
pom cases nolc before that court.
On Monday the Supreme Court Of the
United States, in deciding the case oil Wm.
E. Christian, ct ais, vs. the Atlantic and
North Carolina r. r. Co., and others, IL
which the State treasurer of North Carolina
was made one of the parties, held the
State of North Carolina is the only party
really concerned. The whole proceeding is
virtually against her. Though IL be trGs
that the bondholders have q lien on certain
dividends and stock of the K r i, 1t Is not
lien that can be enforced without suit, and
that suit against the State, the State hav-
Ing direct interest to be affected by such
proceeding. But the State cannot be
brought into court or be sued bS private
party without its consent, the eleventh
amendment prohibiting it. Justice Bradley
delivered the opinion.)
Here the State of North Carolina Was tot
a named party to the suit, but as che was
the only party interested it was held that
she was really party and the suit could not
be maintained, though it was brought only
aaainst an officer of Tue State.
Ia the Virginia coupon cases, though
the suits are brought against oii
GERS of the State, the State IL really the
only party interested, and under the terms
of this decision, the suits arc virtually
against the State and it would seen cannot
be maintained
Such was the decision in Autoui vs.
Greenbcw, treasurer of Richmond city,
March, 1883. 10 this case the State OF N!r
ginia had taken away the right to have
mandamus to compel the reosipt OF coupons,
and given roundabout remedy in ia
stead; and, whist some of the court decided
In favor of the State, on the ground that
the remedy given in place of the mandamus
did not impair the obligation of the COT
tract, Justice Matthews, and Bradley aud
Gray, justices, put their decision on The
ground of the above decision. Matthew,
Justice, In his separate opinion, concurring
with the majority of the court, said that the
State statute, taking away the mandamus,
was unconstitutional, but decided 10 favor
OF the State, on the ground that the suit by
Antoni Va. Greenhow, treasurer of he city
of Richmond, was virtually snit against
the State, and could not be maintained
HE words were "a emit to compel the o.
6cers of State to do the act, which constl-
tutes performance of Its contract by the
State is a suit against the State" which it
will be seen is exactly the ground Of the
above decision.
10 the later case of Polndexter vs. Greer
how. Treasurer of Richmond city, lSS5,
ia U. 81 the Supreme Court changed lIa
decision, virtually deciding that suing ~
officer of the State wac not necessarily suing
the State, though the State was really the
only party Interested in this spit, it being
an effort to indirectly compel the State 20
do what 1t could not be directly compelled
to do. Justice Matthews delivered the opin
ion of the court, which is apparently direct.
" In conflict With his separate opinion in
Antoni vs.. Greenhow. Chief Justice Waite
and Justices Miller, Bradley and Gray die
sented, on the ground that this suit was like
the suit of Anio.i vs. Greenhow. Justice
Bradley in delivering the dissenting opinion
said, 1.-THE officers have no power but what
the State gives them. They act for aud on
behalf of the State, and in no other way.
To sue them is to virtually cue the State. 1t
Ia useless to attempt to deceive ourselves by
an adroit use of worda, or by train of
reasoning We cannot 10 that
way, change the nature of things. Thisi5
the frat time since the XIth AmeEdmont
was adopted, in which S ate has been co.
creed by judicial proceedings at the suit OF
individuals in the Federal courts. That
this Ia such case, seems one of the plainest
that Can be started"
The Supreme Court In the above caea, de-
clded on Monday last, seems to bave come
back to It's decision in the Gaze Of Anroai W.
Greenhow and overruled its decision in
Poindexter Vs. Greenhow, adopting he dis
senting opinion 10 the latter case. Justice
Bradley, who has been consistent al! the
way through these cases, and who rendered
the dissenting opinion in Poirdex er VS..
Greenhow, rendered the opinion cf'oe court
In the case decided Monday, in accordance
with his dissenting opinion ir Poindextsr
vs. Greenhow.
There is every reason to anticipate that
the Virginia coupon cases now pending ia
the Supreme Court will be virtually decided
In favor of the Safe. There are some
minor questions, as the 81 ,0G0 lceose re-
CURED Of persons dealing in coupons, that
may be decided against her. y
----->-Ss---------