Lexington union. (Lexington, Miss.) 1838-18??, 1841-10-23
LEXINGTON, Oct. 10, 1871.

write now, not with the expectation oil
throwing any additional light upon the
subject myself; but to elicit an opinion
from the learned in the lap, as to the con-
SututIonaIl'y of an act of the Legislature
which should give TO the Chancery Court
jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever a.
gainst the State.
AS defendant sovereignty is rather
an anomaly in Jurisprudence; we are left
without the lights of precedenrs to guide
us through labyrinth of technical subte.
ty, which owes its existence to what of
patriotism or party tactics, it is not nv
province to determine.
Nor is it my intention to enter into an
argument for, or against the proposition.
| shall confne myself solely to a brief
statement OF facts, and to the proponnaing
OF few questions which, | confidently
hope, some member Of the bar will have
the kindness to answer.
And, First, the constitution Of the State
provides, that "a separate Superior Court
Of Chancery shall be established, with full
jurisdiction in all matters Of equity" Sec.
IG. Art. ".
Further, that "the Legislature shall
direct by law, in what manner and IN
'rEGt courts suits may be brought against
The State" Sect. 10. Art. VIII.
Under this last clause, the act Of Feb.
10Th, 1888, was passed, which provides,
that "il shall be competent for any person
or persons, deeming him, her, or them
selves body polite, to have a Just claim
against the State of Mississippi, to exhibit
aud file a bill in equity in the Superior
Court of Chancery," &c, &c.
Now, would or would not, an act, which
should confide question of laU to the
jurisdiction of the Chancery Court be un.
constitutional?
Is, or is not the liability of the maker
of negotiable paper, to pay the endorsee,
a question for the courts Of lar?
Is, or is not the liability of the State of
Mississippi to pay the bonds executed to
the Union Bank, and by said bank endor-
sed to bearer, strictly question of loro?
Could, or could not the Chancery Court
entertain jurisdiction in consideration of
the failure of the legislature to provide for
Sults at la0 against the State; thus leaving
the plaintiffs uitbom any remedy at ldu?
II the Chancery Court has rot urisdic.
ton of this matter, is the vote eff the people
final? Or,
Has the Legislature, yet, the power
under the constitution, to provide in what
courts OF tdw, matters Of law against the
State shall be adjudicated'
One other query, which has no immedi.
ate connexion with the foregoing; yet, in.
asmuCh as II might become Of vital impor.
lance, before the liability or nonliability
of the State of Mississippi to pay the I'm
ior Bank bonds is settled, you will excuse
its introduction.
Let me premise, that the constitution OF I
the United States is paramount, not only
to the laws, but to the constitution of the
States. The Federal constitution, apart
from any amendment, provides, that "the (
judicial power [of the U. S. Courlsl shall $
extend 10 all cases, in law and equity,
arising under the constitution and laws
Of the United States, and treaties made ,
Or which shall be made, under their au,
horlty, to all cases affecting ambassadors,
'Iher public ministers and consuIs: to all o
Eases OF admiralty and maraume iurisdic. =
lou, TO controversies 10 which the United II
States shall be party TO controversies il
between two or more States between
tate and citizens of another state, between Il
lizens Of different States between cili. -
ems of the same State claiming lands a,
nder grants of different states, d between 81
state or the citizens thereof, and foreign tt
tdteS, citizens or subjects" Section 9. ~
Art. III.
Thus stood the constitution in 1893. of
hen the Supreme Court Of the U. States pc
Entertained jurisdiction in the case Of ne
'hisolm Us. the State of Georgia; wide 2 D p
DALLAS 4l9) in which it was adjuged that as
Of q ia uoe cnaahIa hy n c,,;uo, c,I n