The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-03-05
A NOTABLE CHANGE IN VIRGINIA
OPINION.

a most noteworthy decision was made
by the Court Of Appeals Of Virginia some
weeks back which we intended to COM
ment on at the time, but which, in the
press Of other matters, We overlooked and
put aside. 1t was decision in which the
court held that an ordinance passed by
the City Council Of the city Of Alexan-
dria, which il was authorized by the
LEGISLATURE Of Virginia 10 pass, that pro-
vidcd for imposing pecuniary burdens
upon the property Of a lot-oWner without
any notice to him Of what it was in
tended TO do and without giving him "a
day in court" 10 show why the burden
should not be imposed, was repugnant
10 that section Of the fourteenth amend
ment to the Constitution Of the United
States which forbids any state TO enforce
any Jaw that deprives any person Of
life, liberty, or property without 'due
process Of law"
The court held that due process Of
law" necessarily implies that person
whose interests are to be affected by an
act shah be notified of the contemplated
act and given an opportunity to appear
and show that the act to affect him in
juriously ought not to be adopted; ana
that as the Alexandria ordinance made no
provision for this lot-owner opposing the
contemplated burden. it violated the four
feenth amendment. and was void.
The same court has recently made an
other decision which belongs to the class
of the foregoing IN respect Of the COM
mont which we propose 10 make upon II.
An act of Congress. passed in pursuance
Of the clause in the Constitution Of the
United states which authorizes Congress
20 regulate commerce among the several
States. fixes the liabilities Of commerce
carriers transporting property from one
State TO another. \ person shipped some
horses from ST. Louis. Mo, TO Danville,
Va. and while passing through Virginia
thcv were badly injured. The owner
sued The railroad company in a court Of
the State of Virginia, founding his claim
upon the liability imposed upon the car
rior by the act OF Congress. The railroad
company raised the point that the plain
Tin could not assert claim founded
upon an act OF Congress IN a State court;
that he should have brought bis suit IN
the United States Court which sat to
secure parties Federal rights. But our
Court OF Appeals held that the right be-
ing clearly conferred upon the plaintiff,
he might elect his tribunal IN which 20
seek enforcement Of it. lio could. OF
course. bring his suit in the Federal
court II he pleased. but the right existed
by virtue of the act OF Congress- and l'e
might bring the suit also in the State
court If he pleased.
Both these decisions are clearly right.
and they indicate a change Of feeling
that Is taking place amongst the people
OF Virginia towards The Federal Govern
ment that Is most healthy and praise
worthy.
when the National Constitution was
adopted. more than one hundred years
ago. there was "A strong party in Virginia,
led by very eminent and very able men,
who looked upon it with great suspicion
and jealousy as making invasions of the
domain OF State rights which would ulti-
mnteiy break them all down and fuse all
the states into one centralized tyrannical
body. That DarY has retained great