The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-04-06

Idea Of SubOrdinalIon 10 eStlhueouS luulclal
power over this right. On the contrary. 1t
admits both OF these propositions and, after
drawing some poetical parallels between indi-
vjdual liberty and State sovereignty and notes
of hand and the treaty -making powers, II as
serts chat both Of these sovereign powers
have been formally Invested under conditions
which forbid the people from re-asserting
them and which the Federal courts are all
powerful to enforce All Of which, leads the
Times to a proposition TO which we heartily
assent and which we have never dreamt Of
controverting, to wit: "That a sovereign
people may enter Into obligations which
will be as binding In morals and public
law as the contract Of an indivdual
would be-" TO all Of this we subscribe, but
we have never been guilty Of the inconsis
tency Of saying that In entering into such Oh
legations the State has surrendered the
power of determining for herself the
character and amount OF her public debt,
or the rate of taxation she shall impose to
meet II, principal and interest, or how that
taxation shall be collected and disbursed:
nor have we ever conceded that these debts
are exigible in any court, Federal or
State On the contrary we have
held that these obligations cannot
be enforced In any tribunal or by any au-
thority, that no such power has been or cam
be delegated, not merely because It is a
sovereign and inalienable power, but also
because such dlvestiture is absolutely for
hidden in the Federal constitution, and that
creditors Of the State must look to the State
and the State alone, In It's sovereign capacity.
-. ,1~J.,
vast difference between a treaty consent to
submit special matter TO arbitration and
the complete divestiture Of a sovereign
right, carrying with 1t the power
Of compulsory process. But without
entering into an elaborate and meta
physical argument with the Times. we
repeat that the principles we have enuleated.
and which are formulated In the Georgia con-
stitution. are consistent with the principles Of
free government" and general In their appli-
cation, and that they have been expressly re-
soenized and their perpetuation guaranteed In
the Federal constitution.
In proof OF this fact, and In order to satisfy
the Times that our position In regard to the
State debt and tho utter lack Of authority In
any court to enforce the collection of any tax
to pay the interest on Ia supported by nu-
meraus precedepts and abundant authority.
we submit the following lucid statement by
Chief Justice Marshall, whose FederaIist ten
denotes will certainly not be disputed by the
Times, OF the origin and effect Of she eleventh
, amendment to the constitution. That amend
ment reads.
The judicial power Of the United States shall
l "a 1n,S
equity commenced or prosecuted against one
of the United States by eitzAns of another
State. or BY citizens or sub.ec OF any foreign
State.
!, Says Judge Marshall;
Ii Ia part Of our history that at the adoption
| OF the constitution all the States were greatly
indebted. and the apprehension that these debts
| might be prosecuted N tho Federal courts
formed ve.y serious objection to h Az ans6,u l
maintained its jurisdicion. The alarm was
general. and to quiet the apprehenstons that
m meaI was proposed in Congress. and adopted
by the state Legislatures. That re- motive
was not to maintain the sovereignty OF a state
| pulsOry appearances before the tribunal Of the
nation may be Inferred from the forms OF the
amendment. 1t does not comprehend contro-
A State and i foreign sfAte, Tue jurisdiction OF
the court still ext, rtis 70 these cases; and In
sae anu 9e o W dbsr
cause than the dignity Of d state. There
is no difficulty IN finding this cause.
Those who were inflicted from commencing q
suit against a State. or from uros cutting one
which might be commenced before the ADDICTION
Of the amendment. We're persons who might
probably be its creditors. There was not mucf
reason to fear that foreign or sister States woyd
be- creditors to any considerable amount, and
there was reason to retain the jurisdiction q
the court In those cases. bee Ause 1t might be
essential to the preservation of pea g. The
amendment, therefore extended g suits com
Or hH ps out
, The first Impression made on the mind By
this amendment is that 1t was intended To-
or against state made by an
, dividual In the courts Of the Union. II we con
slider the causes to which 1t is to be traced. w
are conducted to the same conclusion. A gen
, eral interest might we'll be felt in leading to
State the full power OF consulting Its cconve
nence in the adj ustment OF its debts. or OF othe
claims upon 1t.
That certain sovereign powers have bee
delegated to the United States. anG, that |
= the exercise Of them the Federal authority
: supreme. cannot bequestioned; otherwise til
, Federal government would possess none
;, the attributes Of sovereignty. 1.-THE genera
government, though limited as to it's objects,
says Judge Marshall In the decision we hay
J. quoted from, "is supreme with respect I
y those objects" The only practical questio
:, In this discussion Is: Can the bondholders IL
! woke the Jurisdiction Of the Federal court
to enforce against the State an
=. rights, or pretended rights, they ma
] have We say, emphatically no that no sue
jurisdiction has been or can be conferred undo
the constitution. That instrument declare
- that "the full power of consulting its ow
:. convenience In the adjustment Of il
\ debts shall reside forever in the Stat
!. Even should the State consent to surrend
! this right and submit itself In this respect
- the Federal judiciary, it cosld not do so, al
the courts of the Union would be compelle
= to decline the Jurisdiction, for the reason TIL
!. it Is forbidden in the constitution, and Meth
!. q State nor the people Of a State have al
: right to confer upon the general governmel
7 powers not specially delegated Ia the const
tuition. Upon this point Judge Marshs