Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

I ESTABLISHED 1830. 1 1 J. 11. ESTILL, Editor and Proprietor, f CONGRESS OPENS LIVELY. ALL THE SENATORS SWORN IN BUT MR. FAULKNER. The Committee on Privileges and Elec tions to Decide on His Case Without Delay—Mr. Turple's Papers in the Hands of the Same Committee—ln the House. ' Washington, Dec. s.—The Senate cham ber wore a fresh and tasteful appearance tliis morning. The floors and galleries were newly carpeted, and the desks glistened in their coat of varnish, the odor of which mingled faintly with that of the bouquets and gorgeous floral devices which enlivened the picture. The Senator most favored in the matter of flowers was Mr. Daniel, of Virginia. The devices were of mammoth proportions, and covered not only his desk and chair, but overlapped upon the desks of his neighbors. A huge horseshoe, on ladder of half a dozen rounds, and a com prising the coat of arms of Virginia, were chief among the pieces. Senator Riddleberger’s desk bore a harp, with the compliments of the Clanna-Gael, of Philadelphia. Senator Gorman was the recipient of a horseshoe upon an easel. The desks of Senators Harris, Beck, Pad dock, Stewart, Manderson, Palmer, and that of the President of the Senate, were also elaborately adorned with flowers in various unique and tasteful forms. • COMING IN. The Senators liegan to arrive and take their seats before 11 o’clock, Senators Stew art and Hiscock being the first comers. For an hour before noon the floor was a busy scene, members of both parties, their friends and the otticers of the Senate taking this occa sion to exchange greetings and compare notes. The chief topic of conversation with the majority was the prospect of a conflict over ttie admission of certain Democratic Senators-elect, and it early became known that the Republicans, in default of any caucus plan of action, had concluded to fol low the lead of their members of the Com mittee on Privileges and Elections. These had been in informal consultation, it was understood, and both reached the conclu sion to make no opposition to the admission of Mr. Turpie, of Indiana, but to object to the admission of Mr. Faulkner, of West Virginia, on the ground that there were conflicting credentials from that State. The general opinion was that there would Vie no deadlock, and that Hhe usual course of the opening proceedings would not be broken. IN THE GALLERIES. The galleries were eariv crowded and to overflowing. Mrs. Cleveland, clad in a rostume of dark green and accompanied by Mrs. Gilder, Mrs. Kingsford and several other lady friends, occupied seats reserved for the family of the President in one of the private galleries. The diplomatic gallery was filled by members of the various leita tions, the front seat being occupied by the Chinese Minister, his secretaries and asso ciates. The Minister wore n magnificent robe of light blue satin and his companions were clad as richly, though in more subdued colors. The proceedings of the day were opener! with pray r er by the Chaplain, Rev. J. G. Butler. He asked that the Senators might Vie endowed w ith wisdom, and strength to meet the honorable, and trying responsi bilities of the day and all the duties that gather around them. The President of the Senate, Mr. Ingalls, then took the chair and called the Senate to order. He said he would now place before the Senate the certificates of election, certif icates of appointment and other papers re ceived since the adjournment. The follow ing pajiers were thereupon submitted and read: The certificate of the Governor of Flori da, making a temporary appointment of J. J. Finley as Senator from March 4, 1887, until the Legislature should fill the vacancy caused by the expiration of the term of Senator Jones. The certificate of the Governor of Florida of the election by the Legislature of Samuel Pasco. The certificate of the Governor of New Jersey of the election of Rufus Blodgett. The certificate of the Governor of West Virginia of the appointment bv him of Daniel B. Lucas to fill the vacancy caused by the expiration of the term of Senator < aniden. The certificate of the Governor of West Virginia of a summary of the proceedings by which the Legislature, in special session, elected Charles J. Faulkner as Senator to fill a vacancy. The credentials of William E. Chandler, of New Hampshire. The protest of Daniel B. Lucas against the administration of the oath of office to Charles J. Faulkner. The grounds of the grotest are: First, that the executive of the fate of West Virginia has not certified the election of Charles J. Faulkner under the seal of the State, os required by the act of Congress; second, for reasons set out in the brier of Dauiel B. Lucas, a copy of which accompanied the protest; third, because Charles J. Faulkner was at the time and date of his alleged election on May 5, 1887, and was a judge of the Thirteenth judicial district of West Virginia, and therefore ineligible to the office of Senator. The protest was laid on the table and or dered to lie printed in the lieeord. SWEARING THEM IN. The ceremony of administering the oath of office to the newly-elected Senators was thou procee ed with, such Senators being ••ailed in parties of four and in alphabetical order. The first four Senators thus oallod and sworn (in all instances with uplifted hand and not on the Bible) were Messrs. Aldrich, Bate, Blodgett and Chandler. The second four were Messrs. Cockrell, Daniol, Davis and Dawes. In the swearing of the Senators elect Senator Hoar made objection to the adrnin- C:ration of the oath to Mr. Faulkner, of West Virginia, until certain questions to which his' credentials gave rise could be passed upon by the Committee on Privileges and Elections. Asa member of that com mittee he assured the Senate that the matter should receive the immediate attention of the committee, so that if the gentleman was found to be entitled to his seat be could enter upon his duties without unnecessary delay. Senator Kenna said that the course pro posed by the Senator from Massachusetts seemed eminently appropriate,and he trusted it would be followed without the formality of a vote. This course was followed and the call of the Senators e’ect proceeded. The oath was administered to Mr. Turpie, of Indiana, and he was admitted to his seat. All the l>npel’s In the case were referred to the Com mittee on Privileges and elections. The oath was then administered to the remainder of the Senators. At the suggestion of Mr. Vest, the privi leges of the floor were given to Mr. Faulk ner pending the decision of the contest. When the roll call had been completed, and the Senators-elect were sworn in, the cus tomary committees to give notice to the President aud House of Representatives were named, and the Senate adjourned. fpjje Jltomwfl Messrs. Morgan and Morrill represent the Senate on this committee. In the House. Long before the hour of noon the galleries of the House were crowded to their utmost capacity with spectators drawn together to witness the opening scenes of the new Con gress. Ladies were in a majority, and their gay costumes lent an air of animation to the chamber. On the floor members con gregated and exchanged greetings and con gratulations. There were very few floral decorations upon the desks of the members, though T. J. Campbell, of New' York, was favored wit h a horse shoe of carnations and roses, the gift of the Oriental Club, of New York. At noon the Clerk of the House, called the body to order, and was about to call the roll when a crank in the gallery started a Salvation Army hymn which he sang lustily until ejected by a doorkeeper, w’ai h was not until several minutes lmd elapsed, as the crowd impeded the official in his attempt to reach the singer. The clerk then proceeded with the roll call, amid a good deal of confusion, caused by the gentlemen renewing old ac quaintances, or forming new ones, amid much talk and laughter. The pages were kept busy carrying belated bouquets and floral designs to the proper re cipients. Among the handsomest of the de signs was one presented to Mr. Lawler, of Illinois. It was a tablet of roses, on w hich was inscribed in purple immortelles: “La bor’s Champion.” Mr. Randall’s desk was embellished with a harp, and that of Mr. Stahlneefeer, of New York, was adorned with a tall floral vase. ' On the call of the roll, 313 members an swered to their names and the Clerk an nounced that more than a quorum being present the next business in order was the election of a Speaker. John G. Carlisle was put in nomination by Mr. Cox, of New York, and Thomas B. Reed by Mr. Cannon, of Illinois. MR. CARLISLE ELECTED SPEAKER. At the request of the Clerk. Messrs. Ran dall, Mills, , ong and McKinley took their places at the Clerk’s desk to act as tally keepers and the roll was again called. The vote resulted as follows: Total number of votes cast 818 For Carlisle 163 For Reed 148 For Bmmm, of Pennsylvania 2 Of the four independents. Mr. Anderson, of lowa, voted for Mr. Carlisle, and Messrs. Nioholls, of North Carolina, and Smith, of Wisconsin, for Mr. Brumm, while Mr. Hop kins, of Virginia, did not vote. The Clerk t hereupon declared Mr. Carlisle duly elected Sneaker, and that gentleman was escorted to the Speaker’s desk by Messrs. Cox and Reed, amidst loud applause. The oath of office, having been administered by Mr. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, the Speaker rapped the House to order. kn. CARLISLE’S SPEECH. On taking the chair Mr. Carlisle said: Gentlemen or the House of Representa tives: In assuming for the th rd time the duties of the laborious and responsible office for which you have just chosea me I desire to tender my grateful thanks for the distinguished favor con ferred, and to assure you that it will be my con stant endeavor to justify the confidence reposed in me by a fair and impartial administration of the law governing your proceedings. No length of service in this trying position can ever enable the incumbent to begin the labors of anew term without an oppressive feeling of embar rassment and apprehension. In fact, experience in this place increases rather thane dim inishes the sense of personal official responsi bility; and I can, therefore, say without affectation that on no previous occasion have I undertaken the discharge of my duties here with less confidence in my own capacity to dis charge them well, or with so strong a feeling of dependence on the support of others. None of us can hope to satisfy the just expectations of our respective constituents or to discharge the full measure of our responsibility to the public at large unless we enter on the important and difficult work before us with a determination to cultivate a spirit of forbearance and con ciliation and to assist each other at all times in the maintenance of order and decorum in our proceedings. In his efforts to promote prompt, and regular transaction of the public business, the presiding officer of a body like this, is almost entirely dependent upon the co-opera tion of the gentlemen on the floor, and it is very great encouragement to me to know from past experience that he can always rely upon your active support when he is right and on your kind indulgence even when he is wnsng. I shall doubtless have frequent occasion to invoke your indulgence, but I trust you will never have just cause to complain that it has been abused. There has scarcely ever been a time in our history when the continued pros perity of the country depended so largely upon legislation in Congress as now. for the reason that the dangers which at this time threaten the commercial and industrial Interests of the people are the direct results of laws which Congress alone can modify or repeal. Neither the Executive Department of the general government nor the local authorities of the several States can deal effectively with the situation which now confronts us. Whatever is done must be done here, and if nothing is done the responsibility must rest here. It must be evidtent to everyone who has taken even a par tial survey of public affairs, that the time has now come when a revision of our revenue laws and a reduction of taxation are absolutely nec essary, in order to prevent a large and danger ous accumulation of money in the Treasury. Whether this ought, or ought not, to have been done heretofore, is a question which it would be useless now to discuss. It is sufficient for us to know that the financial condition of the government and the private business of the tieople alike demand prompt consideration of these subjects and the speedy enactment of some substantial measure of relief. Unfortu nately we are menaced by dangers from op posite directions. While a policy of non-action must inevitably result sooner or later in serious injury to the country, we cannot be unmindful of the fact that hasty and inconsiderate legisla tion on subjects more or less affecting large financial anil industrial interests might produce, temporarily at least, disturbances and embar rassments which a more prudent course would en tirely avoid. The investments made and the labor employed in the numerous and valuable indus tries which have grown up under our present system of taxation ought not to be rudely dis turbed by sudden and radical changes in the policy to which they have adjusted themselves; but the just demands of an overtaxed people and the obvious requirements of the financial situation eaunot be entirely Ignored without seriously imperiling much greater and more widely extended Interests than any other that could possibly lie injuriously affected by a moderate and reasonable reduction of duties. No part of our people are more immediately or vitally interested in a continuance of financial prosperity than those who labor for wages. Upon them and their families must always fall Ihe most disastrous consequences of the monetary crisis: and they, too, are always the last to realize the benefit of a return to prosperous times Their wages are always the first to fall when a crisis comes, and the last to rise when it passes away. Our ef fort should he to afford necessary relief to all without Injun- to the interests of any, and therefore that course of legislation should lie pursued which will guarantee the laboring people of the country against the paralyzing effects of general and prolonged financial depression, and at the same time not interfere with their steady employment, or de prive them of any part of the just rewards of their toil. Tftliis can be done, and I believe it can, if our deliberations are conducted witffthe wisdom and patriotism which the gravity of the situation demands, this Congress will have cause to congratulate itself on an achievement which promises peace and prosperity to the country for mauy years to come. These remarks may be considered somewhat out of the usual course, and perhaps not entirely pertinent to the occasion, but I believe you will excuse them, gentlemen, because they relate to subjects which, os we assemble here to-day, are uppermost in the minds of all the people. On a correct solution of the questions, which these subjects necessarily involve, may depend the fate, not onlv of political parties, but what is far more important, the permanent welfare of the greatest and most enlightened constitu encies ill the world. Again 1 thank you. gen tlemen, for this conspicuous and honorable place to which you have assigned me and. SAVANNAH, GA., TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1887. without attempting to detain you further, we will proceed to complete the organizat ion of the House. The work of organizing the House wan then proceeded with. At the completion of its organization the House adjourned. SENATE COMMITTE ES. Filling of the Vacancies Considered In Caucus. Washington, Deo. s.—After the adjourn ment of the Senate the Republicans held a short caucus upon the question of tilling committee vacancies. Nothing was done beyond appointing a caucus committee of seven, of which Mr. Hoar is chairman, to arrange matters. Aiessrs. Blair, Allison, Evarts, Riddleberger, Dolph and Sherman aro the other members of the committee. It will have its first meeting to-morrow morning. The Democratic caucus committee having the same subject in charge also held a short meeting for organization this afternoon, but a quorum was not present. It is not pro posed by the Democrats to make any de mand for a division of the committee chair manships according to party strength, as has been rumored. The Democrats hold to the theory which lias prevailed in the past, that the chairmanships belong to the majority. The Democratic committee will take no positive action in arranging the minorities on the Senate committee until they get the Republican list and see what geographical distribution is made in the majorities. The tendency of events upon both sides points to a harmonious arrangement of nil party matters in connection with the organization of the Senate and its committees. The seating of Mr. Turpie and the objection of Mr. Faulkner were the results of an under standing, to which both sides assented. MONEY FOR THE SOUTH. Some of the Estimates of the Secretary of the Treasury. Washington, Dec. s.—Among the esti mates submitted by the Secretary of the Treasiii Congress to-day were: $150,000 for the ®Lipletion of the court bouse and post office at Savannah, Ga.; SIOO,OOO for the completion of the court house and post office at Augusta, Ga.; $20,000 for a dredg ing ship at the wharf. Charleston, S. C.; for the completion of the post office, etc., at Jacksonville, Fla., $80,000; for establishing a light at Hillsborough inlet, Florida, $90,- 000: for establishing a light or lights and other aid to navigation to guide into Char lotte harbor, Florida, $35,000; for n hospital at Augusta Arsenal, at Augusta, Ga., $lO,- 000; for completing the improvement of Sa vannah (Ga.) harbor, $180,000; for Bruns wick harbor, $75,000; for Cumberland sound $500,000; for Romney marsh, $4,633. Investigate the Doorkeeper. Washington, Dec. s.—lt was rumored on the Republican side of the House to-day that a resolution will be offered at an early day directing an investigation of the Door keeper’s office. The matter has not taken any definite shape as yet, but is being dis cussed by the Republican members, inspired by the developments of the recent contest over the office among the Democratic Representatives. Mr. Norwood’s Seat. Washington, Dec. s.—Mr. Norwood got one of the best seats in the House in the drawing this afternoon. It is on the middle aisle, right in front of the Speaker. SADI-CARNOT’S ELECTION. The English and Russian Press Favor able In their Comments. Paris, Dec. 5. —President Sadi-Carnot, at his reception to the retiring Cabi net last evening, thanked them for the patriotic devotion they had shown during the recent crisis. Ho said he would not form a Cabinet until after he had consulted with the Presidents o! the .Senate and Chamber of Deputies and the chiefs of the Republican groups. The Journal Jen Oebats advises the Presi dent to retain the present Ministry. Republican journals advise a policy of appeasement and concentration. Conservative papers say such a policy would be a lasting success. Thirty candi dates for the Senate were nominated in vari ous departments yesterday. Most of them were Republican. The President to-day received M. Goblet, M. Clemeneeau and others. The Chambers on assembling to-moiTow will again adjourn to await the formation of a Cabinet. The Prefects of all the departments report an excellent impression produced by the election of M. Sadi-Carnot. The evening papers publish a number of Ministerial combinations, but none are definite. Gen. Boulangerhas sent a telegram to M. S.Vii-Carnot congratulating his former col league in the Ministry upon his being raised to tne honor of President. The Bourse was buoyant to-day. Rentes advanced 65 centimes; credit fancier 2lf; Suez Canal 22f; Panama canal 13f, and for eign securities % per cent. COMMENTS OF GERMANY’S PRESS. Berlin, Dec. s.— The German newspapers generally, in their comments on the election of M. Sadi-Carnot, re-echo the official view. Tbe Tagblatt says: “Sadi-Carnot is a neutral personality," but his Republicanism is undoubted and he will repel, with whatever force he has, all attempts toward the restoration of monarchy.” The Vossiche Zeitung sees in his election some guarantee of peace within and without France. The National considers him a most re spectable jierson and a man who will treat seriouslv political affairs. Tbe Post says: “The defeat of M. da Frev cinet and M. Ferry means that the party In favor if European war is discouraged.” The Montagsblatt congratulates France upon getting an honest man with a calm mind, but expresses doubt as to his strength of character. AT THE MERCY OF PARLIAMENT. London, Dec. s.—The Times, comment ing on the election of M. Sadi-Carnot to the Presidency of France, says: “For the pres ent the Republicans are united and able to show a firm front, against Monarchist in trigues and Anarchist outbreaks, but M. Sadi-Carnot holds his position at the mercy of a parliamentary vote.” DE FREYCINET OFFERS TO FORM A CABINET. London, Dec. 6,3 a. m.—The Paris cor respondent of the limes says: “M. do Freycinet to-day called upon M. Sadi-Car not and offered to form a Cabinet. M. Grew and M. Wilson are living in a house in Avenue Jena, which is almost unfu# nished and is without servants. M. Wil son’s health is breaking. There is no change in M. Grevy’s appearance or bearing," RUSSIAN APPROVAL. St. Petersburg. Dec. s.—Tbe papers hero approve of the election of Saai-Car not. The Nome. Vremya says the solution of the crisis was fortunate in every way. Ordered Out of Russia. Vienna, Dec. 5.—A1l the Austrian and Hungarian subject* employed on the Rus sian provinces bordering on Galacia and Bukeovinia have been ordered to quit Rus sian territory before J an. i3. VIRGINIA IN THE RIGHT. IMPRISONMENT OF HER OFFICERS ILLEGAL. The Proceedings of James P. Cooper in the Nature of a Suit Against the State, and Therefore in Violation of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. Washington, Dec. s.— When the United States Supremo Court reassembled at noon to-day it was evident from the large attend ance of spectators and of members of the bar, that important decisions were antici pated, and the presence of al* the counsel on both sides in the Virginia habeas corpus cases, as well as of the petitioners them selves, indicated that among such decisions would tie tbe judgment of the court upon the latest phase of the great Virginia debt controversy. The first decisions rend were not of general public interest, but when Justice Matthews said that lie was directed to announce the judgment of the court in the cases of Attorney General Ayers and commonwealth attorneys Scott and McCabe, of Virginia, upon writs of habeas corpus, every eye was bent upon him and he was followed with the closest attention throughout the reading of the long and carefully prepared opinion, which occupied more than an hour in delivery. A SYNOPSIS OB THE CASE. The facts of the case are well known and the long statement with which Justice Matthews prefaced the opinion of the court may he summarized by saying that on Juno 6, 1887, James P. Cooper and other holders of tax-receivable coupons of Virginia bonds began suit in the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern district of Virginia against Morton Marye, Auditor of the State of Virginia, and other State officers for the purpose of restraining tbeiji from bringing suits in State courts for the collection of State taxes in cases where tenders had been made of receivable con pons, and such tenders had been refused. Upon the rending of the bill of complaint, Judge Bond, of the United States Circuit Court, issued an order restraining the Aud itor, Attorney General and all the common wealth's attorneys of the State from insti tuting such suits under such circumstances, and from doing anything to carry into effect • the “coupon crusher” act of the Legislature of Virginia of May 12,1887. Attorney Gen eral Ayers and the other petitioners disre garded this restraining order, and were thereupon fined SSOO and committed to prison. APPEALS TAKEN. They thereupon brought their cases to this court upon acplications for writs of habeas corpus, alleging that the United States Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to make such an order to entertain the suit in which it was made, and that their imprison ment was without legal authority. After stating the case at great length, and an nouncing it as the settled policy of the court to discharge upon writs of habeus corpus iiersonsheld for contempt in cases where the lower court was without jurisdiction, Jus tice Matthews said: The question presented is really whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in which the order complained of was made, because the sole purpose and prayer of the hill are by final decree perpetually to enjoin the do fendants from taking any steps in execution of the act of May 12, 1887. Jf the court had the power upon the case made in the record to en tertain the suit for that purpose, it has equal power, as a provisional remedy, to grant a re straining order, violation of which consists of the contempt adjudged against the petitioners. THE PRINCIPAL POINT. The principal contention on the part of the petitioners is that the suit, nominally against them, is in fact and iu law a suit against the State of Virginia, whose officers they are, juris diction to entertain which is denied by the eleventh amendment to the constitution. It must be regarded as the settled doctrine of this court, established by its recent decisions, that the question whether a suit is within the pro hibition of the eleventh amendment is not al wavs to be determined by reference to the nom inal parties on record. Justice Matthews then renews carefully and in detail the decisions of the courts in cases relied upon by the counsel for the bondholders to show that the suit is not within the prohibition of the eleventh amendment, and shows in what respect such cases differ from the oases of the peti tioners. Resuming, he says: It Is, therefore, not conclusive of the principal question in this case that the State of Virginia is not named as the party defendant. Whether It is an actual party in the sense of the prohibi tion of the constitution must be determined by consideration of the nature of the case as pre sented on the whole record, THE MAIN AVERMENTS. The substantial averments of the bill are: First, that the complainants were owners of SIOO,OOO worth of the receivable coupons of Virginia, for which they ha/1 paid over $30,000; second, that they have sold $50,000 of that amount for $15,000, or more, to taxpayers of Virginia, who have tendered the same to the proper State officials in payment of their taxes, but that said officers have refused to receive the same; third, that if the officers of tbe Slate are permitted to enforce the act of May 12, 1887, the complainants will he unable to sell the remaining t.">o, (6)0 of their coui>ons to tb taxpayers of that tato at any price, and thus their entire prop erty in the "same will be destroyed; fourth, that the act of May 12, 1887, is unconstitutional and void, because it impairs obligation of the con tract of the State of Virginia, by which it agreed to receive coupons cut from its bonds in payment of debts, demands and taxes due to it. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS. The particulars in which this contract Is alleged to be violated by the provisions of that act are: First, that in disregard of tenders of tax receiva de coupons made by taxpayers in payment of taxes, the act of the General As sembly peremptorily .requires action at law to bo brought in the name or Urn .State of Virginia against all such taxpayers as are de lir.rioot.' second, because In the trial of such actions it is required that the defendant shall not only prove the fact of the tender, but the genulness of the coupons tendered: third, that as part of (bat proof he is required to produce tbe bond Itself from which such coupons are sat 1 to have been cut; and, fourth, that tie is not per mitted to Introduce expert testimony to prove the genuineness of the coupons. The prayer of the hill is that the Attorney General of Virginia and the commonwealth’s attorneys for the coun ties of the State be restrained by injunction from commencing and prosecuting any suits under the. acts of May 12. 1887, for the recovery of taxes against parties alleged to be delinquent but who lu fact have tendered tax-receivable coupons in payment of taxes due. WHAT THEY SEES TO RESTRAIN. It is to be observed that the only personal act on the part of tfie petitioners sought to be re strained by the original order of Juno . 1887, is the bringing of any suit, under the act of May 12. 1887, against any person who bail tendered tax-receivable coupons fn payment of taxes due to the State of Virginia. Any such suit must by the statute be brought In the name of the State and for its use. It is im materia! In our opinion to consider matters which are alleged in respect to the cause, and conduct of such suit after Its institution by reason of provisions contained In other acts of tho General Assembly restricting the mode of proof of the genuine ness of the coupons. If suit may be rightfully brought by the State to recover judgment for taxes in such a case, certainly there is nothing in these provisions that violates any legal or contract right of the parties sued. Jf he de fends tbe action on the ground of the lawful tender of payment he must, of course, plead the tender and may rightfully be required to bring Into court the tender alleged to have been made. THE HCItnEN or FKOOr. Under the Issue upon this plea the burden is upon the defendant of proving the truth of hi* Allegation*. What shall l>e the amount and kind of proof necessary to establish tho defense involves questions of law which can only be raised and decided in the course of a trial. Their determination is for tho court where the trial is to be had. If in pursuance of other acts of the General Assembly tho contract rights of the defendant us a taxpayer having tendered tax-receivable cou pons are denied to him in that trial by reason of the requirements in regard to the nature and Quantity of the proof on to the genuineness of tne coupons, the errors of law thus committed can only be remedied according to the common course of judicial proceedings by a \\ l it of error, which, ns it would present the Federal question, might ultimately bo used out in this court. Hfh it is not to he assumed in advance either that such questions will arise, or that if they arise t hey will be erroneously decided. The question, therefore, is narrowed to the single inquiry of the equitable right of the complainants to en join the petitioners against bringing any such suits at law. ONE OF THE SUPPOSITIONS. It seems to be supposed in the argument that the Hght of tax payers in Virginia who have tendered tax receivable coupons in payment of their taxes to the proper collecting officer, to be forever thereafter free from suit by the State to recovei judgment for such taxes rests upon the proposition that such tender is in law payment of toe taxes, so as to extinguish all claims for them on the part of the State. This proposition is said to he jifstifled by the language of this court in the case of Poindexter vs. Greennhow. * * * There is, however, in that opinion nothing to indicate that the party making the tender was relieved from the operation of the rule of the law making it, necessary to keep it or that subsequent action at law or re covery of taxes would be unlawful, reserving, of course, in such ease, the admit ted right of the defendant, to plead tho fact of his tender, and bring it into court in pursuance of the usual practice in such cases as defense. It follows, therefore, In the present case that the personal acts of the petitioners sought to be restrained by order of the Circuit Court cannot be alleged against them as an individual act in violation of the rights of such taxpayers. AIMED AT THE STATE. The relief sought is against the defendants, not in their individual, but in their representa tive capacity. The acts sought to be restrained are the bringing of suits by the State of Vir ginia in its own name and for its own use. If the State had been made defendant to this bill by name it would have been repre sented by the same officers who are now here. The namre of this supposititious case is identical with that of the case as actually presented in t U bill with the single exception that tbe Slate is named as the defendant. How else can the State tie forbidden by judicial process to bring actions in its name except by constraining the conduct of its officers, attor neys and agents, and if all Buch officers are personally subjected lo the process of the court so as to forbid their acting ill. its behalf, bow can it be said that the State itself is not subjected to the jurisdiction of the court as an actual and real defendant? It is, however, in sisted upon that it is within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to restrain, by injunction, offi cers of the State from executing the provisions of a State statute void by repugnancy to the constitution of the United States, that there are many precedents in which that jurisdiction has been exercised under the sanction of this court, and that the present case is covered by their authority. THE CASE OF OSBORNE. Justice Matthews then reviewed carefully the cose of Osborne agS-inst the United States, which is especially relied upop by the counsel for the bond holders to maintain this proposition, and says that it doe* not appl yto the questions now raised. He says: The present case stands upon an altogether different footing. Admitting all that is claimed as to tho breach of the complainant’s contract by the State, there is, nevertheless, no founda tion in law for the relief asked. For (he breach of its contract by the State, it is conceded there is no remedy by suit against the State , of Vir ginia itself, because of the eleventh amendment to the constitution, which secures to the State immunity a ainst suit by individuals of other States or aliens. This immunity includes not only direct actions for damages for breach of con tract brought against the State by the name but all other actions and suits against it whether at law or in equity. A lull of equity for a specific performance ot contract against the State by name, it is admitted, could not be brought. In Ragood vs Southern it was decided that in such a bill where a State was not nominally a party to the record brought against its officers and agents, having no personal interest, in the subject matter of the suit and defending only as representing a State “where the tilings re quired by decree to he done and performed by them, arc the very tbiugs which, when done nod performed, constitute the performance of the alleged contract by the State, the court was without jurisdiction because it was a suit against a State.’’ THE CONVERSE EqAUALLY TRUE. The converse of that proposition must be equally true, because it is contained in it; that is, a bill, the object of which is, by injunc tion, indirectly, to compel the specific iierform ance of a contract by forbidding all those acts and doings, which constitute breaches of con tract, must also necessarily be a suit against the State. In such case, t hough the Stats tin not nominally a party on the record, if the defend ants are its officers and agents, through whom alone it car. act In doing, and refusing to do things which constitute a breach of its cont ract, the suit is still iu substance, though not in form, a suit, against the State. Such is tho precise character of the suit, in the Circuit Court against the petitioners in which an order was made, violation of which consti tutes tne contempt for which they have Iven committed to the imprisonment from winch they seek delivery by these writs. It may be asked what is the true ground of distinction so far as protection of the constitution of the United State* is invoked between the contract rights of the qomplainant in such suit and other rights of person and of property, in these latter cases it. is said that Jurisdiction may be exercised ugaiust indi vidual defendants, notwithstanding the official character of their acts, while in a case of tbe former description jurisdiction is denied. THE DISTINCTION OBVIOUK. The distinction, however, Is obvious. The acts alleged in tho bill as threatened by the de fendants. the present petitioner*, arc violations of ari assumed contract between tbe State of Virginia and the complainants only as they are considered to la; acts of the State of Virginia. The defendants, as individuals, not being parties to that contract are not capable In law of committing a breach of ft. There is no remedy for breach of con tract actual or apprehended, except upon the contract Itself, and Iwtween those who are by law parties to it. * * * It cannot be doubted Dial tbe eleventh amendment to the constitution operates to create an Important distinction between the contracts of a State with individuals and contracts lietween individ ual parties. In contracts between a Slab- and individuals by virtue of the eleventh amend ment to the constitution, there being no rem edy by suit against, the State, the contract is substantially wit bout sanction except that which oriv-s out of the honor and good ia.tu of the State itself, and these are not Kubiact to coercion. Although a State may, in tbe’mception of a contract, have consented to subject itself to suit, it may subsequently with draw that consent and resume its original ini munity without any violation of the obligation of its oontract. iu a constitutional sense. The very object and purpose of the eleventh amend ment were to prevent the Indignity of subject ing a State to the coercive process of a judicial tribunal at the Instance of private parties. It was Ihought to be neither becoming nor con venient that tho several States invested with that large residuum of sovereignty which bn 1 not been delegated to the United States sho lid be summoned as defendants to answer tho com plaints of private persons, or that, the course of their public policy and administration of their public uffairs should lie subject to control by the mandates of Judicial tribunals without, their consent and in favor of individual interests. COVERS BOTH CASES. Ey a fair and liberal interpretation of the eleventh amendment it must lie held to cover not only suit* brought against a State by name, hot thoe also against its representatives, where a State though not named as such is neverthe less the only real party against which alone re lief is asked, and against which the judgment or decree effectively operates. But this Is not in tended in any wav to infringe upon the princi ple which Justifies suit* against imH-, vidua! defendants who, under the color of the authority of unconstitutional legislation by a State are guilty of fiersonal trespass and wrqugs. It need not he apprehended that the construction appliod to the eleventh amend ment In this case will embarrass or obstruct the execution of the laws of the United State* in ca*es where State officers are guilty of actin'? in violation of them. because the United States flews with them as individuals owing obedience tc Its authority. The penalties of disobedience may be visited upon State officers without regard to the character in which they assume to act, or the nature of ex emption they may plead. Nothing can be inter posed between an individual and the obliga tion he owes tothe constitution and laws of the United State*. If, therefore, a State officer, undercolor of State laws, oodles Into conflict wit h the superior aut horit y and valid laws of the United States, he is stripiied of his representa tive character and subjected to the consequence* of his conduct. A State has no power to Impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme law of the United States. CONCLUSION OF THE OPINION. The opinion concludes os follows: In contradistinction to these classes of esses for the reasons given wo adjudge the suit of Cooper et al. against Marye ct at, in which injunctions were granted against the present petitioners to be a suit against the State of Vir ginia. It is therefore within the prohibition of the eleventh amendment . By the terms of t hat provision it is a case to which the judicial I ower of the United States does not extend. The Circuit Court was without jurisdiction to entertain it- All proceedings In exercise of the jurisdiction which it assumed are null and void. Tho orders forbidding the petitioners to bring suits, for bringing which they were adjudged in contempt of its authority, it had no power to make The orders adjudging them in contempt are equally void, and their imprisonment is without authority of the law. )t is ordered, tnerefore, tha the petitioners he discharged JUSTICE FIELDS DISSENTS IN PART As soon as this announcement was made many of tho spectators began filing out, and the Marshal hurl to rap for order several times during the reading of the early por tions of Justice Field’s opinion dissenting from some of the views expressed in the opinion read by Justice Mat thews, though not from the con clusion reached. In his opinion Justice Fields says that he concurs in the main position upon which the discharge of the petitioners is founded, namely, that the suit was one against the State of Virginia itself, and therefore in violation of the eleventh amendment. He made this special concurrence, however, because of the language in the majority opinion expressing approval of the position taken by the court in Louisiana against Jumol, from which ho dissented. That case he con sidered as brought to compel the officers of the State to do w’hnt she had con sented they might lie required to do by judicial tribunals. Ho adhered in every respect to what he had then said expressing his conviction of the invalidity and uncon stitutionality of the ordinance of repudiation embodied in the new constitution of Louisiana., and also in his opinion of the equally invalid legislation or Virginia, as expressed in Antoni vs. Greenhow. justice Harlan said that he adhered to his dissenting opinions in the cases of Antoni vs. Greenhow, Louisiana vs. Jumel and. Cunningham vs. the Macon and Brunswick Railway Company, and therefore dissented from the opinion and judgment in this case. He expressed tho view that suits brought in the Circuit Court of the United States were not suits against the State of Virginia within the meaning of the eleventh amend ment. A VICTORY FOR PROHIBITION. Justice Harlan Affirms the Constitu tionality of the Kansae Law. Washington, Dec. s.—Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court to-day in the two so-called prohibition cases of Peter Mugler, plaintiff in error, vs. the State of Kansas, Herman Seiebold and others, affirming the judgment of the lower court in the two Mugler caßes and reversing the judgment in the Seiebold case. The effect of the opinion is to declare valid the prohibition laws of the State of Kansas, and is, of course, a victory for tho Prohibitionists. The court said that the case came up under the laws of Kansas declaring tile maintenance of a building for the manufacture and sale of liquor to be a nuisance, and making the manufacture or sale of intoxicant* a misde meanor. It was contended that this law was unconstitutional tieenuse it abridged the rights of citizens, and deprived a citi zen of property without due process of law, the building used as ft brewery being of little value for any other purpose. Justice Harlan said it had been held re peatedly that tho right of a State to regulate the sale of liquor did not invade the constitutional rights of a citizen. It was contended, however, he said, that no State Legislature had a right to prohibit any person from manufacturing liquor for his own use or for export, for the reason that it was an invasion of personal liberty inherent in citizens. It must be observed, however, ho said, that the l ight to manufacture a drink for one’s own use is subject to the restriction that it shall not injuriously affect the public. The right to determine wliat was injurious liaii to exist somewhere, and the right of determining w'hat measures are necessary for tha preservation of the public morals, health and safety had there fore been vestal in the States by the consti tutional right given them under police power to regulate their own internal con cerns. While this police power could uot be abused, and must only be exercised for objects of real merit, this court would certainly not say that the liquor traffic was not one winch the .State could lawfully pro hibit, because it was well-known that abuse of intoxicants was productive of pauper ism and crime. The next ground of con tenticn, the Justice said, was that as the breweries had been erected prior to the passage of the prohibition law, and as they were of little use except for breweries, their property was taken without lino process of law in violation of the constitution. But all property under our form of government, he held, Is subject to the obligation that it shall not be used so as to injuriously affect the right of the community and thereby become a nuisance. The State of Kansas had a right to prohibit the liquor traffic. It did not thereby take away the property of brewers, it simply abated a nuisance. The property is not taken away from its owners; they are only prohibited from using it for a specific purpose, which the Legislature declared to be injurious to the community, Failure of a Bucket Shop. Cincinnati, Dec. s.—The Hodgen Com mission Company, whoso main office is in Louisville, with branches in Cincinnati, Ixauisville, Evansville, Indianapolis, Chi cago, Pittsburg, Cleveland and Baltimore, is reported failed to-day on account of the steady rise in tho markets. The firm is a brokerage or “bucket shop” concern. Tho liabilities are estimated at from SSK),OOO to $130,000, and tho assets at S4O,(XXI. The liabilities of the Cineiuuati branch are esti mated at S2B,(XXI. Editors in Litigation. Indianapolis, Dec. s.—Tho Sentinel to day charged Phil Bappaport, founder of the Tribune., with making an Anarchist speech yesterday. Mr Rappaport has caused the arrest of W. J. Craig, editor and proprie tor of the Sentinel, on a charge of criminal libel. A Miser Robbed. Bangor, Me., Dec. 5.—A special to the Commercial says: “Peter Bennett, a wealthy old miser living at Newport, who distrusted banks and kept his money in his house, was beaten nearly to death last night, and robbed of s#ll,ooo.’’ (PHICE9IO A YBAH. I \ a C BATS A COPY, f FIGURES WILL FALSIFY. MORE OF HARPER’S ORIGINAL METHODS OF BUSINESS. The Riverside Iron and Steel Company Had Assets of $369 When it Failed ~ Karper’s Assets Aggregated $75,000 and Debts of Nearly $6,000,000 Chocks Carried as Cash. Cincinnati, Dec. s.— The Harper trial was resumed to-day with M. Schofield, of the First National Bank of New York, on the stand to make some additions to his testimony. Among other things he stated that his bank had a claim of $25,000 against Receiver Armstrong of the Fidelity Bank. Bookkeeper Walters was then cross exam ined at considerable length. He said the Riverside Iron and Steel Works’ note, indorsed by Harper, gave them a credit of SIOO,OOO. He stated also that Harper had a fictitious credit with the First National Bank of New York upon which he drew. He admitted that he helped the Bank Examiner mako his examinations and gavo him ail the information in hw power. Walters stated that, he carried hack to the Metropolitan National Bank 8100,000 which had been 1 Firm wed as a temporary loan by Harper. He thought this was on June 17. heavy assets. John 8. Conner, assignee of the Riverside works, testified that the assets were SIXS9. Maj. 11. P. Lloyd, assignee of E. L. Har per, testified that he found assets amounting to about $73,000. Against this stood claims of the Chemical Bank, of New York, for $05,000: Western National, of Now York, for $U00,000; tho claim of a Chicago gentle man, Mr. Armour, for $1,300,000, aud a civil suit for $3,000,000 against him and other directors of the bunk. Charles A. Hinch, Assistant Receiving Teller of the Fidelity National Bank occupied an hour and a half of the afternoon session by reading from books a schedule showing the amounts of the checks carried as cash items, day by day, during 1886 and 1887, by E. L. Harper, J. W. Wiltshire and J. W. Wiltshire & Cos., Wiltshire, Eckert it Cos., E. L. Harper & Cos., and Swift’s Iron and Steel Works. WHAT IT SHOWED. The reading was monotonous. It showed May 19, 1887, a total of $6*1,600; May 31, $920,643; June 14, $963,743, and on June 30, when the account was closed by the govern ment, these items amounted to $1,109,266. These checks were exhibited to the witness and lie identified them. The witness said he received his instructions from Harper. He then read a statement showing what would have been the state of these accounts daily if the checks had taken the usual course from Jan, I to June 30, 1887. liarjier’s account would have been overdrawn at the last day $43,000. The Swift Iron and Steel Works account was overdrawn all the time in amount* ranging from SIOO,OOO to $470,000. The average overdraft of this account during this time was aliout $350,000. FIGURES FALSIFIED. The ledger of the bank showed an aver age credit balance of aliout $120,000, the book* failing to show the true condition of the accounts by from $300,000 to $406,000. The witness made similar showings with J. W. Wiltshire’s account, and in every in stance stated that the course taken was at the instance of Harper. It appeared that at the final crash Wiltshire, Eckert & Co.’s overdraft reached the enormous sum of $1,109,622, while th- Swift Iron aud Steel Works account was much nearer even than it had been. The witness ex plained that this was done by Haiqxtr himself substituting their checks for those of Swift’s Iron ana Steel Works. Harper appeared to have control of these checks, for he brought them to the witneee to be entered as he directed. This monoto nous reading of accounts rnnning into hun dreds of thousands of dollars was not ended when the court adjourned. It does not seem possible for any defense to meet the case tbeee relentless figures make agiinst Harper. He listens to them without emo tion, and his counsel hears them without an effort to parry their force. WOODFORD’S MIDNIGHT MEETING. Eight of the Participant* Sentenced to Imprisonment. Dublin, Dec. 6.—Eight person* who were present at the famous midnight meeting of the Nationalists at Woodford were sen tenced by the court there to-day to various terms of imprisonment. The defendants' counsel, Mr. Bowles, termed the proceed ing a farce and was thereupon ejected from the court room. Mr. Bowles then attempted to address the people outside the building, but the police dispersed the crowd, using their batons freely and injuring sevsmM person*. The Pan-Anglican Synod. JjoNnoN, Dec. s.—The Archbishop of Canterbury bos called the Pan-Anglican Synod to meet at Lambeth in July next. The synod will assemble July 3 and wtlj continue in daily tension until the the fltb, when an adjournment will be taken to the 23d to enable the committees to deliberate. The labors of the synod will be concluded Jan. 7. Trial of London’* Suspect*. .London, Dec. s.—The hearing in th* case of Thomas Callan, of Lowell Maas., and Michael Harkins, of Philadelphia, the alleged dynamiters, was resumed to-day. The public was excluded from the court room. Evidence was furnished showing that Callan received letters signed Jaow (Scott, Lowell, Mass., containing bills. Switzer land’s Now President. Berlin, Dec. s.—The Council of the State has elected M. Gavard, of Geneva, President and M. Schocb, of Schaffhausen Vice-President of Switzerland. Both are Radicals. _____ 15,000 Men Locked Out. London, Dec. s.—The Northampton fao tories have commenoed a lockout of 15,00 workmen. __ Death of the Walking Wonder. Indianapolis, Dec. s.—John Owen Sny der, better known as the “Walking Won der,” died yesterday at bis home at Mill Grove, Blackford county. For nearly three years previous to his death Snyder was impelled, as he said, by some mysterious force to walk constantly, and he took his meals while continuing his ci'aseless tramp. He slept but little, generally iu a chair, but the minute he woke be started to walking. He made a tour of the museums of the country recently which yielded him a hand some sum. Death fl-om Hydrophobia. St. Louis, Dec. 5.—A special to the Post- Dispatch from Hot Springs says: “The wife of Alderman Loughran died last night of hydrophobia, having suffered horrible agony. Some time ago two of her children were attacked by a ferocious bull-dog, and in rescuing them she was badly bitten. The wounds were cauterized and a mads tone ap l plied, but the remedies had uo effect.”