The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-04-18


racts with individuals.
Conceded.
.. A State may enter into obligations affect
ng and limiting its control over the sovereign
tight Of taxation
This we also coneede, but In the legal sense
Obligations are of three kinds. viz: 1mper-
fect obligations, or such az operate only on
bhe moral sense. without being enforced by
any positive law; natural obligations, which |
cannot be enforced by action but are binding |
On the party who makes themin conscience and
to natural justice, and finally civil
which constitute legal tie, and
which give the party with whom they are
contracted the right OF enforcing their per
Torrance by law.
We hold that a State bond Ia not a civil OBJ
legation simply because there is no tribunal
In which It can be enforced against the State
by law. Civil obligations are perfect contracts
and State bond has all the qualities and
characteristics 81 contract, except thai 1t
cannot be enforced against the State In D
court Of justice. Practically, then, q State
bond is natural obligation.
There are certainly, any number Of in
stances in which State can incur civil obli-
cations which can be enforced by law and 1t
has been repeatedly decided by the Supreme
Court Of the United States that obligations Of
this character have been incurred, and may
be incurred again. which even operate liml-
tation upon the power OF taxation. But these
decisions merely decide that the State may
exempt from taxation and that such exemp-
ton may constitute contract, which the
Supreme Court OF the United States and that
court alone, can take cognizance OF, by writ
of error directed to the State court Of
last resort, and which 1t will. in the exercise
of It's supervisory Jurisdiction, forbid the
State to violate. But we defy the Times to
produce single case wherein the Federal
courts, Supreme or inferior, have ever under
taken to compel State to assess and collect
q tax In satisfaction Of an obligation. The
State may grant an exemption from taxation
under the conditions Of q contract, which the
Federal courts will have Jurisdiction to en-
force; but Ii cannot, by contract or otherwise,
confer upon individuals the right to exercise
the taxing power, or upon the Federal or
State judiciary the power of enforcing tax
In satisfaction of any obligation the State
may have assumed.
Ibis CONSTITUTES tue eALSlt VI Lue UlUlthLiOu
that may be imposed upon the States con
troll over the right OF taxation. There is no
power authorized to bind q State, by contract,
to impose q tax, and II such q contract were
made it would not be binding. and il it were,
the general government would be forbidden
by the constitution to enforce It,
s. Such agreements as the Stats may enter
into affecting the right of taxation are pro-
tected by the provision OF the constitution
prohibiting the States from impairing the
obligation Of contracts.
This is true Of cases where the civil obliga-
ton to exempt from taxation Is incurred, but
not in those where the State has obligated
herself to impose tax for the benefit Of in
dividuals. The judicial power of the United
States Is forbidden to extend to such cases by
the eleventh amendment, and 1t cannot be ex-
tended to them by contract or waiver OF
jurisdiction, or In any other manner than by
an abrogation Of the amendment In the case
OF the Governor Of Georgia VS.. Madrazo Il
Peters 110) the Governor Of the State stipu-
lated to abide by the decision OF the Federal
courts. The United States courts refused to
entertain jurisdiction, the same being forbid
den by the eleventh amendment and the
Governor having no right to make volun-
tary appearance. or, by doing SO, to confer
jurisdiction where it was expressly forbidden
In the constitution.
It is now left to US only to consider the
remedies by which, according to the Times,
the State creditors can enforce the collection
of their bonds. 1t suggests two processes,
one by suit In the State courts. upon which
jurisdiction to bring before them their SOW
ereign is conferred, as the Times insists. by
the terms Of the contract created in the
amendment Of 1874 and the funding act, and
thence by writ of error to the Supreme Court
of the United States; and the other by man
damus directed by the Federal courts to the
officials of the State
1t is conceded, we assume, that the State
cannot be brought before its own courts by
compulsory process. We will concede, how
ever, that the consent Of the State to be sued
may be given in a general law as well as by
special enactment. Let us turn to the amend
ment of 1874 and see what powers 1t gives to
the State courts. The only words In that
amendment that refer, however remotely, to
the courts are as follows: ITO secure such
levy, collection and payment, the judicial
power shall be exercised when necessary"
Surely it will not be commended that the State
intended to submit itself in its sovereign ca
pacity to the jurisdiction of its own courts by
this provision.
The courts are authorized to compel the