The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1869-08-30
CAN "A STATE BE FORCED TO PAY ITS
DEBTsi

on the subject has grown out OF the ag'ta'
ton of the proposition in Tennessee to repu'
date the heavy debt contracted by Brown
lows military government. If this debt
shall be repudiated, the Journals quick per-
ception discovers the whole magnificent
pile OF debts created by carpetbag govern
ments in the south tumbling TO the ground
and as in all the reconstructed states bonds |
were issued most layshly by the carpet'bsg |
legislatures and negotiated at enormously
low rates to themselves and friends, it is
prospectiyely, at least, a very serious and
important question to the truely loyal of the
nation who were in the ring aud secured
large quantities OF these state obligations to
pay, at from 80 cents upward on the dollar
The Journal evidently thinks that if loyal
man had entered rebels plantation in the
south under military warrant and protection
and had concluded while in possession to
raise a few thousand dollars by giving a
mortgage on the place, that it would be
downright roguey for the true owner when
he should come into possession, to refuse to
recognize the validity Of the mortgage and
discharge it. 1t therefore concludes that
the whole southern community is about to
become guilty of this terrible otTense, for it
knows the facts and says "the disposition to
practice fraud seems inherent in the south
ern body polite" In all this there is moth
ing surprising, but that paper ofthe
Journals pretensions should suppose or ar
que that state can be legally compelled TO
pay its debts when it wills to repudiate them,
is little surprising. On this point the
Journal says
"Ifa state can pay and will not, can't it
be compelled to? We know that nation
has optianal power, but that is because o
nation is absolute in its sovereignty and
there is no higher power that has any juris.
dlcton over IT, II is not 30 with a state. A
state forms part Of the nation, and is sub
ordinate to national authority. But this
subordination is not entire. There are re.
spects in which it is as independent as the
nation itself, aud the question arises, Is the
right to cheat one of the reserved rights Of a
state? Such was the position taken in the
Mississippi case. The Federal Government
stood BY with folded arms and saw that com
monwealth deGraud George Peabody and
others, making no more attempt to prevent
it than as if it was totally separate and
perfectly independent nation. All this, too,
when clause Of the Constitution, in deEu.
ing the jurisdiction of the federal Judiciary,
says 1t shall take cognizance OF actions be.
tween states and citizens of different states.
If John Smith, a citizen Of Illinois, holds
bonds issued by Mississippi, in which the
state solemnly pledges itself TO pay the bear.
cr 800 at specified time, or on demand,
and upon presentation the state refuses to
redeem it's pledge, does not the Constitution
dy in an appeal to the Federal Court, as
much as if the debtor was an individual citi
zen of Mississippi? Such would seem to be
the intention Of the clause. But it is held
by the court itself that the clause is intended
only for cases IN which the state appears IA
the plaintiff, and not as the defendant This
may be very good law, but it is certain,
very poor equity. 1t is equivalent to saying
that The design was to protect the stronl
from the weak, but not the weak from tn
strong
We can but hope that, in case necessit,
should arise for testing this matter, n NOR,
equitable Interpretation will be put upoi
this clause
If the constitution had not fallen into such
bad odor among Republican politicians, and
that instrument had been consulted by the
Journal writer, the elaboration of his doubts
would have been saved for by au amend
ment to the constitution designated as arti
Gle NJ Of amendments, it is expressly pro
vded that a state cannot be sued, as follows
"The Judicial pOper Of the United STATE,
shall not be construed TO ertend 10 any SUI
an law or equity commenced or prosecuted
against one ofM United States by citizen
Of another state or by citizins or subjects o
any foreign state " The attempt to secur
from the United States court Il state.thro
tign construction Of the words of the orr
insl instrument declaring that the "judici
power shall extent to all cases between
state and citizens Of another state" led
the putting of the question beyond dispu
by constitutional amendment. Such an al
thoritative declaration was only needed b
those whom the early history of the govern
ment, demanded that the Federal should b
superior in all things over the state govern
ments-a theory which it is reserved 70
modern Repubicanism to make fact by mil
itary power. 1t is not very strange now tina
apubhc journal should exclaim in astonisl
ment, as the Journal does that 1.-THE FEEDER,
government stood by with fold ed arms" an
saw the state Of Mississippi repudiate h
debt, making no more attempt to prevel
1t than if it was a totally separate and pc
fectly independent nation" At the time
this alleged dereiction the Federal Cover
ment understood its functions and never u,
dertook to transcend them. We can We
well understand why a journal should
surprised at this in this day of political d
generscy when it is considered that congre
has no limitation on its power and that i
states are absolutely subject to FEEDER
domination. But if the constitution is
any force at all, its plain, unequivocslIwor
positively forbid any suit being brought
maintained against sovernigp state by
Individual for any cause whatever
-
4 Jast Tribute from F0e-The follow
from the address of Gov. Chamberlain,
the late reunion of the army ofthe Potion,