The Democratic Whig. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1842-1843, 1843-09-14

II
millions pay no interest," and as tho United
States must, Of course. continue 70 pay the
Indian annuties Il Is in their power al any time
/ BY suing out the bonds in he Supreme Court,
70 compelfhs payment Of them.
2. The sister States may become possess
sons Of these bonds--by purchasing as the
United States did-by taking them n pav.
ment Of debts--by taking them in payment Of
lauds--bv taking them AZ securities rom their
banks, e. New York has done with more than
three millions Of STATE stocks.
B. But the most dangerous plaintiff vii Be
the aforsign State"
There are more than fifty recognized for.
eign powers with whom the United States
have political and commercial relations. There
are al least twenty more as independent pow
ere. There are thus upwards OF sixty foreign
STATES quite as sovereign as Pennsylvania Is,
and many Of them more sovereigu, because
they have no government above them, and
capable Of going into the Supreme Court oftbe
United States 70 sue her. Unfortunately ma
ny ofthese foreign states say that Pennsylvania
has defFauded their subjects; that after borrow
ing money by pledgng the honor Of The State,
she has spent i in works Of which she s enjoy
ing the benefit, and win pay neither principal
nor the interest They know that last year
the addition Of tax Of one per cent. on the a.
sessed value Of tho property Of the State---a
single hundred thousand pounds would have
I paid the iuierest--but even that small tax was
not laid.
There Is therefore abroad an extremely Bit
ter feeling against Pennsylvania-and these
foreign States viii scarcely be able to with
stand the clauofs Of their subjects to seek re-
dress for their wrongs That redress is equal
! y easy and pacific. More than half a century
\ ago Pennsylvania, in entering the Union,
made It q fundamental condition, that fever
she had q controversy with loreign State, it
should be settled BY the Supreme Court Of the
/ United States BY whose decision she solemnly
promised to abide. Her pride would have SUI
4 isred By being sued BY private suhiect-bui
/ With the State 10 which she belongs, with a
Stale as sovereign as herself her dignity viii
permit controversy so that although the sub
Jet cannot sue, his sovereign can sue for him.
I Whether in order to make The required "cou.
iroversy.' It Is sufficient that the ioreign State
take Up the cause Of is subject and sue in his
name for the benefit, without an actual owner
ship, Is technical question Of subordinate in
teresi, since i Is easy Tor that State 70 acquire
the bouds BY taking them II payment Of debts
O. taxes, of BY purchase, so as TO become the
absolute owner. We, certainly Of al people,
/ have no right 10 object 10 such course, snco
L IS exactly what NC would have forced on our
own Government % Do. lfwhen We are dri-
~ Z ailc sisvota5nefl To he very verge Of var
Nth Naples and tganee z1d Mexico, isr our
claims, i had appeare THAI 40 impartial tribu-
fal had been creau8 Nv lhesa Mates 10 try
tleGi, not ssfse . hfea19 IL io0lish pride pre-
l vented tleni iruiiiadifegilz private cItiz5n 10
a1heiar8 the tribunal. oar Government as a
aoVega,- ~ ceu3 cue ior us would we have SUI
cred tie Government 70 delay for moment
appearing beinre that tribunal, sueing for De,
either 10 our name " iis ownl Certainly no
Administration, which refused could have slood
iof bali 40 hour against the storm, lor thus q.
baniohing Che country E rights What cause
Of complaint then have we, II, for instance, The
paiernal Governments Of Switzerland. If Barne
Of Zurich Or LncFena should take up those
honest nuuniaineerss whom Penns, lvania has
wtonged out 81 three hundred thousand dollars,
and receiving Their bends INTO their own hands,
demand paymeH Of them They do not 60
70 war with us--ihey only 90 to law With Be,
and they golo law exactly alef our own fash.
ion, and before 8 tribunal 81 our own making
Suppose. then, any one Of these foreign
States brings a suit against the State 81 Penn,
sylvania in the supreme Court Of the United
r States 90 one ofthe bonds issued BY The State.
I, 70 the Jurisdiction Of the Court. theio can Of
course 6e no objection, that being The precise
tribunal which tie State Itself has, b. lhs
Constitution, chosen az the afbiierofth6seve rv
differences. TIE bond Is produced There
. + Il the seai ofthe Siate-lhefs are The sirna-
: &C., - ~. ,.-.rr a54ta.-- fh--. = a..
} nii sa 81 tie State 10 pay go much money, with
{ interest At stipulated periods. The money Is
UNPAID, hndiudament b demanded, Now BE-.
4 fote ghe Supieme Ceuft 81 DE United States
} Pennsylvania may plead against lia payment
Of the bond anything which any private mar
s may plead against he payment q BIS bond, 70
3 thow Is ingalidily, and / any such Be proved
s the State sill be relieved from payment. Lu
: 10 olsa which would not release private ciii
B zen would b oltho slighteei avail g the State
!. More especially would the absurd preldnsioI
Z that Che State bad too much dignity to be hon
J, est. and, IS sovereign, had q right 70 ehea
{ is neiqhhors. b laughed to eebn. The onll
J. form u whichan opposition to the claim nigh
e appear would be some subsequent act Of Penn
4 sylaania. dsavowing the odni Of repeating thi
q loan Jaw, or declaring that they never wnuli
e pav the debit TIC snnh an Aet q TIC Aiesisia
{. lure tho natural answer would be that Penn
d sylvana had, By the Constitution, agreed lha
v ano State should pass any Law imparing tn
s obligation Of contracts - that i could not in
y pair the contracts Of others, still less could
!. impair It's own; and that the bond being q con
II tract BY the State binding itself to pay none
+ was beyond the control Of tho legislature
d The supreme Court has 50 decided again an
g again. When the Legislature d Georgia, j
~ 1905, sold body Of lands, and the next yea
) declared the sale void, as having been obtaine
/. bv fraud. the Supreme Court would permit Ii
81 State 10 recall is grant when the land had bee
Il fairly bought BY a real purchaser. deelaTin
.e that Hthe state is as much Inhibited from in
&c pairing lie ogn contracts, or contract
sr which il is pariys as Il Is from impairing III
rs Obligation Of contracts between two individu
). als.n For the same reason the Court annulle
Of law of New Jersey n 1904 taxing certai
e lands which tfe e5iohial Legislature 81 IL
had agreed with ths indians Should not be TAI
D. "a, the Court declaring that the iist law WI
al 4 contract which The second had no right
N impair So they annnnIed The law Of Ne
le Hampshire which violated The colonial contrai
With the Dartmouth college. So ia a cas-
o. t0m Kentucky they decided that uihe Stal
a. bad no more power 70 impair an obligation ini
ID which she herself bad entered than she had
7" impair the contracts nfindividnals."
~ That this spirit Of tde Supreme Court IL u
broken was shown Is very last session fe
10 months ago, when il annralad e unconslii
ID iional a Law Of the State Of Illinois requiri,
N An appraisernent Of lands taken IN exec,,,;