The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-04-15
tho ,aat cent Of the funded debt. be IL fraudu-

lent or flDb.
Tbis II The attitude tbs State creditors are
tnade hi Ivy their speclal oraan. and We
must eoncede that there is nothing 10 y not en-
tlrelyropslstent with The tone they have adopt
IA ffpn The beginning. We have yet 10 hear
from them single proposition looking h q
discussion Of the equities Of their claims OF
The ability Ut the people to meet them, or
10 anything else except their own selfish In
tsrests. without reference tu the poverty aud
distress " those who hHve to meet their fear
f,il exaetions. Whenever the inability 70 meet
These exaetlons Ut the necessity u fsllef Inns
heen limited at these people have straiRh'~
way begun Ia split their thrDats With clam
ota for
--@"Jhs law,
The penalty mud forfeit ~ The bond
10 every appeal. to every representation
Ia behalf u The people they have beer deaf.
Like Shyloek. when lmpottunsd by Portla 10
Have Nv aome surgeon. sltyloak. ~ your
10 stop bis wounds. lest he do b'ssd ~ death"
| They reply:
"a II 80 nominated III The bond ~
| Iorfia II IL not so Expressed. but Whist ~
that9
| ahgtofk-"I cannot find n: lie not in The bond
III such d contest the DEMOCRAT shall
always be- On the side ~ the people, be they
right or wrong In this Instance We believe
them to be right, both In law and common
equity and honor. That the convention has
d perfect right to investigate and adjust the
State debt under the Federal constitution
and tl1a laws. md that II will exercise this
right. we have no manner III doubt. IT
the total laeh III any power IN the
Federal courts 10 annul anything that
the convention may do IN order b. enforce the
so-ealled contract rights of the State credit.
ore. under tile amendment Ut 1874 and tho
funding act. we are equally assured. We hnd
hoped That the adjustment Of this whole ailss-
ton would have been approached In differ
emf spirit. Int if the creditors VI the State
insist upon the Inv. md choose tn invoke the
coercion pf the Federal courts, we shall not
avoid the issne. II they prefer H. close their
eata 10 MI reason and decline aIl eonsldera=
tlon VT the States ability to pay, and ~ re-
sort 10 the courts for The enforcement Of
their claims. the people will havs but one
course left them and that Will be 10 hlow the
bondholders 10 take their own measures and
get what they can. We trust, however. that
1 they will adopt more eoncilIatory course
and consent ta an equitable disposition u
their claims BY the people III convention as-
senhed.
10 our mind. there ia no provision If the
constitution palmer than that which reserves
10 sovereign State The power u adjusting
and providing for the payment Of its debt,
and which exempts IL from the judicial toer-
con Of The general government.
| No such powers have been given To the
Federal courts, and no means afa provided for
The execution pf such powers As George
Mason said In the Virginia ratifyIng eonven-
ton, IN law Without sanction, Or power
unaceompanled by my provision lot III on
| Foreatnent, must be u nonentity" Airy ons
ut Hll familiar with the circumstances which
Ied 10 the adoption of the eleventh amend.
msrt and with the motives which prompted
IT, cannot coms To any other conclusion Let
Id take, for example, the position taken by
NJ Massachusetts, upon this question.
suits had been instituted In tho Federal
courts against The different States. and those
courts assumed jurisdiction. This provoked
d general agitation, which. In Massachusetts,
was sd by Gov James Sullivan, and II sIroad
throughout The btatss until tho eleventh
amendment was procured. In the case OF
Chisholm vs. Georgia, III 1903. Tho Supreme
Court decided such suits tn hn constitutional.
M Massachusetts WAS next cited IN appear in n
Federal court by VIM. Vnssni n refugse
loyalist, suing for his conilscated estates
l, Therenpon Gov. John Hancock convened
tho Legislature, which Immediately passed
tho followed resolution:
Hesotped. Tint n power claimed, or which
may be claimed, Of compelling atate tn bs
Htates. III lhs auii III an indtvidna, Or iadivld
uaip, H. In tho opinion IT this Legislature, un
neceaaary and inexpsdlent. md. III ~ exercise
dangerous 10 the psncs. anfsty and ipdspsnd
enc, vi HE several States aud rerugnsnt to the
jua, principles Of Fsdsral government
The Legislature then proceeded 10 Instruct
the Massachusetts delegation IN Congress- IL
proceed ut once to obtain mn amendment, t.
"removs any clause Or article 81 the sale
constitution which may be construed Il
imply q decision that u State Il compelled Il
! snswer. III my suit by mn Individual or In
7 dividuals In any court Oi tho United States.
The great result Of this movement, led bJ
Massachusetts, was the adoption VI ths
eleventh amendment, under which we CLAIM
Z Tint the State Of Louisiana has the power o
consulting her own convenience In tho adjust
InGut 81 HGr usDt, anu bIbL bHl9 TlRnL, un0Hl
the constitution. cannot be taken from her o
abridged by the progresses Of any court, Stat.
!, or Federal. That the Federal courts will at
!. tempt to exercise this expressly inhibited
: jurisdiction Mt the instance III tho State cred
! tors we do not believe for one instant, tn
], Times to the contrary notwithstanding. II Il
;, for the bondholders TO select between the en-
forcement OF this law In the courts and tn
submission Of their claims u the convention
]. They should not hesitate In regard to thel
!, choice.