Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-08-27
FEDERAL INJUNCTIONs.
Abuses of the United states courts
and How TO Prevent Them.
(For the Dispatch


The purpose of this article is to review
as briefly as may be. the abuse Of the
| EQUITABLE remedy of injunction by the
Federal courts, and to indicate in some
measure the origin of the abuse and the
remedy therefor. Most of the complaint
and condemnation of the exercise Of this
equitable remedy has arisen because of
its action and restraint upon the SOW
ereignty Of the States and the admins
tration of matters Of local concern within
the States. 1t is well, therefore, TO recur
to the fundamental principle that State
cannot be sued without its consent, and.
as l take it, no part of the admnistra-
tive machinery can be interfered win
which is essential to the life of the State
and the control of its local affairs. Long
prior to the now celebrated Debs case pub
lie opinion has expressed itself justly and
strongly against what may be called 'Ju-
dicial usurpation" by the Federal courts.
The decision in Chisholm VS.. Georgia.
Dali. H9-decding that a suit against q
State could be maintained, aroused pub
lie opinion and gave birth to the Eleventh
Amendment, and as far back as the de-
bates upon the adoption OF the Constitu-
ton the people were warned against the
danger of Federal power as welded by
it's judicial arm. BY reference 10 Nos.
50 to SO of the Federalist ii will be seen
that If summoned all the ingenuity and
power of Hamilton's masterful mind 10
meet the objections raised to the power
reposed in the judicial department of the
government.
Mr.. Hamilton's centralistc mind. how
ever, would doubtless have been surprised
as well as pleased with the decision OF
McGahey VS.. State of Virginia, l35 L. s.,
l62. and that line of cases, for IT was he
who wrote I'm No. 81 of the Federalist
that '1t is inherent in the nature of
sovereignty not to be amenable 10 the
suit of an individual, without its con-
sent" This pronouncement was not made
because of any Limitation in the Consu-
tuition, for the Eleventh Amendment, for
bidding a suit against a State had not
then been passed but as Mr.. Hamilton
said: "rhis is the general sense and gen.
eral practice of mankind; and the eX-
emption. as one of the attributes OF
sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the gov
eminent of every State in the Union"
THE SUPREME COURT.
While the writer admits that the SUI
preme Court of the United States has
stood firmly by the letter Of this princi-
pie and the Eleventh Amendment as SUBJ
seouently reaffirming the principle. IL can
not escape the careful reader of the de-
clsions of that great court that by some
very nice legal distinctions, able and in
eenious reasoning, the court has left a
wide and smooth way open TO the process
of the Federal courts against the States;
EXCEPT only where a suit is brought
against a State TO enforce the payment OF
its money obligation. In the case of In
re Ayers. l23 l.. s.. 49, and other like
cases, including the case in l35 u. $, G52.
supra. II was established that neither a
State. nor its organic agents, nor a pO-
itical State corporation, can be sued by
a private party; but In the case of Pen
noyer VS. McConnaughy. 40 u. S., /, 10, il
is held that though no suit is allowed
under the Eleventh Amendment 10 compel
affirmative action by a State or its Off
GERS or organic agencies yet when 1t or
any OF It's agencies use power unconsti-
tutionally against a citizen ne, by suit,
may prevent such invasion OF right. The
result OF this judicial Interpretation has
been TO reduce the force of the Eleventh
Amendment to its minimum as a means of
protection to the State Government
against the infringement of Federal
power; a broader and more liberal inter-
probation OF this amendment tending to
preserve the complete integrity of the
State Government in respect 10 all local
affairs. as was the original intention OF
the Constitution. would have avoided
much of .he trouble arising with respect