The Illinois free trader and LaSalle County commercial advertiser. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1841-1843, 1843-08-25

The letter of Nc. BidlIe recently published in
the Philadelphia papers, in which he takes the
ground that England, or any other foreign power,
by buying up the bonds Of the indebted states OF
the Union can sue those states in the supreme
court OF the u. S, obtain judgment, and sell the
property Of such states to pay their bonds, is ex-
citing considerable attention among the nowspn-
pers throughout the country. The wing papers,
although they pretend to hne him and call him d
"iocouco' pay still SO much Difference to the
great Money King as to swallow his opinions with
out hesitation as good law Thus the ChicagI
Express among others, has already ayowed It's
belief in this new Biddic doctrine and appears to
be terribly scared at the huge bugbear Of counties,
suits by foreign powers, the sale Of the property OF
the indebted states, &c. But unfortunately for
the aafms,s, ''thc fish is not 50 great a whale
after all.' writer ia the New York Commercial
Advertiser, more familiar with the statute law
and the decisions OF the courts than the retired f.
naucier, very ctleclulIIy uses up Mr.. Bildle's doc
lrjue Ia tie following bricf paragraphs The Al
bany Argus, in publishing them, remarks, 1--WE
quote nearly all the writer in the Commercial ADV.
says, as SGT of in foil for Mr. Bdde's mortal
columns, with the remark that il John Boil were
now Obligated to pay some $4,000 for the best
opinion Of home production on the subject, we
suspect that as between these two competitors,
the Andllusiln would scarcely touch a guinea
ofit:"-
ia holder Of any of those bonds could by an
assignment, reaor coIonhic, to a foreign state, en-
able that state to maintain an action IN the Uni.
ted states tribunals, doubtless Judgements could
readily be recovered and pay mcnt enforced by ex-
ecuton but does not Mr.. b. greatly mislpprc-
bend the effect Of such an assignment suffer
me to direct the attention Of Mo. B. to one ofthe
clauses Of the 1lh section Of the judiciary act OF
1889 which provides n, follows:
"Nor shall any district or circuit court have
cognlAnce OF any suit to recover the contents of
any pronsspry note or other chose in action, il
favor OF an assignee, unless a suit might have
been prosecuted IN such court to recover the said
contents, II no assignment had been made, except
IN cases OF foreign bills of exchange"
Those bonds being what are termed in law
chooses in action, it Is manifest that no suit could
uo commenced 10y any assignee, whether such as
signee be foreign siuc or one Of its citizens, un-
less suit could have been prosecuted IN the Uni
ted states court by the assignors That the as
sisnors or present holders could not prosecute
sach an action is conceded on all hands. How
then can foreign state, deriving its ownership
through a transfer executed by party confessed
y not competent 10 SUE, sustain an action in the
federal courts
lie clause above quoted has on several occa-
SONS received the consideration and decision Of
the Supreme Court, and in no instance has that
court failed To give 1t the fullest operation In
deed IN one case, even where the subject Of the
suit was not a chose in action and consequently
not within the letter of the law. but party had.
by an assignment made for the purpose, cndcav-
oIed to acquire the privilege of suing in the cir
cut court the count extended the split OF the
law to that case, and held that they had no jgrs.
diction."