The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1878-04-05
Can states he Made 70 Pay Their
DebtSf

H...U -.-... .H..
This question 10 exciting much interest
since hrst broashed recently in the New
York Nation. As 10 known, under the
constitution, as originally framed, such
suits could be maintained and collection
enforced where judgment was obtained;
and that fact, when q practical case arose
Ia a suit agains. the State OF Georgia, led
to the adoption OF the eleventh amend
ment to the constitution, in apprehension
that the result in the Georgia case would
lead 10 endless suits growing out OF the
old revolutionary war debts OF the States.
Il was not anticipated tnen, however, that
the States which had accomplished their
liberty and entered upon o new career
under the federal Uunion which they had
formed would ever seek to avoid the pay
ment Of debts which they might thereaf-
ter contract on tho faith Of their honor
for material and advantageous purposes.
That very position was thought to DO the
shield aud protection Of their creditors in
all the future; but now that We see such
States Gs Tennessee, without the plea OF
ever having been wropged in the contract
Ing Of her present debt, neglecting for
some time past to make the least effort to
provide for any part OF the interest there
omit IL felt that the eleventh amendment
Il on too elevated 8 plane entirely. Hit
were repealed II would certainly have the
effect Of making States more careful
hereafter In the matter Of mourning debt,
though it should have no effect on present
inds6teness. but, even as the constitution
nov stands, the inquiry Is very lively and
the suggestioBs very strong as to tho
means OF the o~i,issns OF a State recover
Ing on obligations duo them by another
STATE. The idea Is 10 substitute the State
for ia citizens where they arc creditors
Of another StAte,and the question 10 asked,
can a State which has purchased from its
own citizens the bonds Of a repudiatiug
State compel payment Of them by suit
Ia the federal courts? This particular
inquiry is made BY a writer in the New
York Journal Of Commerce, and the editor
answers as follows:
"Ths jirisdiotion Of the federal courts,
In suits between States, has been q sub
lee. Of keen controversy, but II neyerthe-
less exists, and the constitution does not
expressly limit to political questions.
0nthe contrary. the language OF that 10.
strument, article 5, defining the Judicial
power, declares that II extends, generally,
TO controversies between two or more
statss' Why may not such . controversy
arise on contract? Ithas bean susgested
M an objection that the Law hiss prescrib.
cd no execution against a State. Attorney
General Randolph, in the celebrated case
Of Chisolm VI. Georgia. Dali. R 4l9, an.
swered this poiut by saying that the su.
preme Court hGs power % decree the
form and mode OF execution. He also
argued that the action Of assumpsit would
lie sgainst State. The majority Of the
court coincided with the opinion OF the
Attorney General, and ordered that unless
the State OF Georgia appeared In due
form, or showed Cause TO the contrary,
Judgment by default be entered. This was
a case in which the suit was by u oiuEsn
Of one State against another State, and the
decision created such alarm that u con-
s%tituuonsl amendment was adopted TAX
Ing away the power Of a citizen to sue q
State. But the amendment left the clause
regarding controversies between States
untouched; and the same reasoning by
which the court came to the conclusion
that d State was suable on contract, un-
der the constitution "a 1t then stood, APP
plies to the question whether 1t Ia suable
In the same form Of action by parties
who have au %undisputed right to claim
the process uf the court. Its probable
that an attempt to enforce the collection
OF repudiaied State bonds in this manner
would arouse frerce opposition, and that
allsthe resources Of learning and argu-
ment would he brought to bear 10 defeat
the fort. sUnder such circumstances II
would seem presnmptuous TO undertake
to forecast the result, at least without a
~profounder study Of the question than We
have Time to give. Our Impressions are,
However, ,hatin a case where the plain
tit state Ia the legsl assignee OF o debt
owned by another, It might command the
process Of the federal court to enforce
collection. The federal court has adjua.
icated In regard 10 State boundaries IN a
suit between States. and this Ia as much
amaterialLSuO asthe payment OF adebt.'
% --D--