Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-03-17
FRIDAY. MARCH II, 1899.
THE sLfPPED-IN PROVISION.

though we are by no means prepared TO
accept the writer's views. II the position
contended for by the author be that
which has been. or is TO be, adopted at
Washington. Virginia is going to have a
big legal fight upon her hands.
Under the provision inserted in an APP
preparation bill In the hurry and confu-
sion Of the closing hours OF Congress the
Secretary OF the Treasury is authorized
70 proceed against the "defauting"
States for the sums alleged TO be due by
them to the United States Government.
As we have heretofore explained in these
columns. in the fifties or early sixties the
Indian Trust fund became the owners Of
a large amount of the bonds Of Virginia.
No interest has been paid upon them, we
believe. since January, 1861 but the Fed
eral Government has reimbursed the In
dian fund and acquired its assets.
The United States had like transactions
with a number of other Southern States.
and now IL desires to secure a settlement.
The Virginia case is Of particular inter-
est because 1t Is supposed that the State
be made a party to the proceedings, and
because Virginia claims large offsets
against any deot she may be found
owing the Federal Government-said Off
sets being on account of moneys fur
nished during the war of 1872, ana also
10 erect the Federal buildings at Wash
ington. Here is The letter:
TO the Editor of the Dispatch:
In your editoria, of March 18th. on the
subject. "The States IN Default" l find
the following expression: 1--WE do not
know how the United States can sue
sovereign State" As the quotation pre-
sents an interesting question, with your
permission ! will endeavor to throw
little light on the subject;
Under the Constitution the Federal
judicial power extends to controversies
30 which the United States shall be a
party" article Ill, section p
In Volume l., fuckers Blackstone Com
mentaries. referring TO the above language
of the Constitution. IL is urged that the
clause is particularly appropriate to such
disputes as might arise between the
United States and any one or more States
respecting territorial or fiscal matters"
app, page, 42O)
Story says ut would be a perfect
novelty in the history of national juris-
prudence. as well as of public law, that
|, al sovereign had no authority 10 sue In
his own courts. Unless this power were
given to tho United States the enforce
ment OF all their rights. powers, con-
tracts, and privileges I'm their sovereign
capacity would be at the mercy of the
States. And there would not only
not be- any compulsory power over these
courts 10 perform such functions, but
there would not be any means of pro-
ducing uniformity in their decisions.
- 1t would PROSTATE the Union at
the feet of the States. 1t would compel
the National Government 10 become a
suppliant for justice before the judicature
of those who were. by other parts of the
Constitution, placed in subOrdination TO
it." (Story's Cons. Secs. 1874. 1879. 4th
1sd. Story's Cons, pages 7i0-7il. appendix
But the application of the principle just
. cited has IN recent years occupied the
attention OF the Supreme Court of the
United States. First. in the ease. United
States VS.. State OF North Carolina. Q36
L.. s., page 2il) This was "A suit TO re-
cover interest on bonds OF the State of
North Carolina. held by the United states
In trust for certain tribes OF In
dams, and the Supreme Court OF the
United States exercised original Jursdic-
ton in trying 1t.
A year or two later the State Of texas
was sued In the Supreme Court OF the
United States by an original bill in
equity. process being sued upon the Cow
ornor and Acknowledgement OF the State.
The bill was demufred TO upon the ground
that no such power existed under the Con-
stitution, and the questions involved
were deliberately and ably argued. orally
and by briefs, on behalf of the State of
Texas by eN-Attorncy-General Garland,
Attorney-General Cuibcrson, Jud < c
Clarke. and Hon. Heber May. bu, the
court sustained the jurisdiction and di-
rcc;ed Tho case to proceed upon its merits,
and gave final judgment against the state
OF Texas In the controversy. uij l.. :.
Rep. GA and le2 l.. ). Rep. ID
In this case Chief-Just.ce Fuller and
Associate-Justice Lamar dissented from
the opinion. but Justice Field concurrcd
with the majority. the court standing Z
10 2 In favor of the United States.
The above citations seem 20 answer your
question. and are respectfully submitted
for the information O: the public who read
your editorial OF date above referred 70
Respectfully. EDGAR ALLAN. IL
We have an idea that the view present
cd IN AR. Ailan's letter Is that (which is
held IN certain Official quarters at Wash
ington; but that doeslt make II correct.
There is another side to the question. ana
" may prevail. even In these days OF
generalization and expansion.
But even Il II were clear that the United