Liberty advocate. [volume] (Liberty, Miss.) 1835-1866, 1843-09-16

&c '"e foreign State lako up the cadec Of
'ot SUBJECT aud sue in his name for has ben,
Dc Nv, without an actual ownership, IA tecl
W n'ca' question of subordinate in,eres
20 since It is easy for ihaI StOle to acquir
y ne bonds by taking them in payment
Tvs aeo'S or taxes, or by purchase. so ms
nc become The absolute owner. We certain
&C. " OF an people, have no right to obec
" 10 Such course. it is exactly wha; W
ID would have forced on our own Govern
ne ment to do. II, when we were drivin,
,e inc government TO the very verge Of wa
Is with Naples, and France, and Mexico To-
our claims, 1t had appeared that an i'm
q partial tribunal had been created by ,hos,
states TO Try them, but that, while feel
u ing OF foolish pride prevented them from
+ Suffering private citizen 10 go before
J. mat tribunal, our Government, as soy
erelgn, could sue for US, would we have
d suffered the Government to delay for a
o moment appearing before that tribunal.
r suelng for US, either in our name or lis
own! Certainly no Administration which
y refused could have stood for half an hour
against The storm for thus abandoning the
2 country's rights. What cause of com.
plant then have We, if, for instance, the
paternal Governments OF Switzerland, of
berne, or Zurich, or Lucerne. should take
up the cause of those honest mountain
GERS HON Pennsylvania has wronrcd out
OF three hundred thousand dollars. and
receiving their bonds into their own
hands, demand payment for them2. They
do not go to war with US; they only 90 70
law with US; and they 90 to law exactly
alter our own fashion, and before q tribu.
nal of our own making.
Suppose, then, any one OF these for
eIgn States brings a suit against the State
Iot Pennsylvania in the Supreme Court Of
the United States, on one of the bonds is
sned by The State. To the jurisdiction of
The Court there can Of course be no OBJ |
Jec tIon--that being the precise tribunal
which the State itself has, by the Consti-
tuition, chosen as the arbiter Of these very
differences. The bond is produced. |
There IS the seal of the State; there are
the sigma lures Of the proper officers; there
IS the promise OF the State to pay so
''N'Sh h'OHSN WIN at Sll1ulatcui
periods. TIE money is unpaid, and judg q
ment is demanded. Now, before the Su- "a
preme Court Of The United States, Penn t
syIvanIa may plead against The payment a
OF the bond any thing which any private !
man may pleud against the payment olIN
his bond, to show isinvaldi.y, and if any s
such be proved. the State will be relieved r
R,,t Mon l.
lot release private citizen would be of 5,
he slightest avail to the State. More es- "
'eciaIy would the absurd pref ention that Il
he State had too much dignity TO be hon 81
st, and as sovereign had right 10 cheat OF
Is neighbors, be laughed 10 scorn. The NJ
My form in which an opposition 10 the fc
lain might appear, would be some suhse- OF
uent act Of Pennsylvania disovowing the T
Dan, or repeating the loan law, or decIar lie
ng that they never would pay the debt Pc
o such an act of the Legislature the ar
atural answer would be, that Pennsyl. lun
ania had by The Constitution agreed that sis
no State should pass any law impairng i'm
he obligation Of contracts" that it could op
OF impair the contracts of others, still wi
IS could 1t impair lis own; and that the OR,
'nd, being contrac, by the State bind pei
g itself to pay money, was beyond the VII
'ntrol ofthe Legislature. The Supreme del
ourt has SO decided again and again.
hen the Legislature Of Georgia in 1895 "
I'D body Of lands, and The next year he
cleared the sale void, as having been OBJ
ined by fraud, me Supreme Court would ow,
IT permit the State TO recall its grant mo-,
hen the land had been fairly bought by il,
real purchaser, declaring that "the cur
ate is as much inhibited from n pairing ma
own contracts, or contract TO which of {
S party, as it is from impairing the eye
llgallon of contracts between two indi 9th,
iuals." For the same reason the Court far
auled Jaw OF New Jersey IN 1914, deb
ing certain lands which the Colonial ieuc
gIslaiuro of 1853 had agreed with the and
iians should not be taxed--lhe Court ton
'iarlnG that the first law was contract q
ich the second had no right TO impair. eau,
they annulled the law Of New Hamp from
re which violated the colonial contract ltha,
h the Dartmouth College. So in a slim
from hentucky, ihey decided lnat tion
"'o "au "o 'iioIe power " ,nP'i, racy
obligation into which she herself had men
cred, than she had to impair the con- led
IT'S OF individuals" cert,
That his spirit OF the Supreme Court try
nbroken, was shown at lis very last a tr
non few months ago--when il annnl- State
as unconstitutional law Of The State wFor
illinois requiring an appFalsemeni oflif tn
Is taken in execution. Other
'ou may Judge, then, how unavailing iusiic
IRE such atribunal would be any effort whic
Pennsylvania % plead lis cwa reyocs- exist