The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1880-03-03
Can 4 state be Sued P

&
ing debts due from States. We notice
also that certain holders of Louisiana
bonds have instituted proceedings in the
United States courts against that State.
Considerable discussion has been caused
BY these actions, and this has given rise
to the question which heads this article.
When the colonies were separated from
England, the common law was, for the
most part, kept as TO the law of the
several States, and one of the rules
was, THE STATE cannot be sued" This
was the rule when the Constitution was
formed. Each State stood as a sover-
eign power, and bad all the rights and
immunities Of sovereignty. When the
Constitution went into effect the rights
and powers of the States we're, of course,
limited to some degree, but no one will
dispute the proposition that the States
retained all rights and powers excepting
such as were by the Constitution ex-
pressly granted to the Federal govern
ment, and such as are necessary for the
proper execution Of those expressly
granted. In other words, the States
were still sovereign, except in so far as
limited by the Constitution. In the
Constitution, as proposed, provision was
made for suits "between 4 State and
the citizens Of another State" This
provision was rejected. The men of
those days fully understood what they
were about when they made the amend
ment that State could not be sued by
the citizens Of another State.
They could not see why the citizens Of
one State Of the Union should have any
greater rights against another State than
the citizens Of the latter State had.
Nor can we. There is no reason why a
citizen of New York should have rights
against the State Of Louisiana which
The citizens Of Louisiana do not have
Indeed, if a citizen of one Of the States
is to have the right to sue a State, then,
in equity and good conscience, not only
should the citizens Of the latter States
have the same right, butall aliens should
also.
And yet all the civilized and uncivil-
lied countries Of the world have united
in the opinion that no government shall
he liable 10 q civil action at the hands
of an individual.
If we be right in what we have said,
then it follows that the difficulty is not
a technical one by any means. The
difficulty is in the nature Of the form of
government On the same ground it is
held that neither q county nor city can
be made liable for the wrong Of pub
lie officer when he is acting in the dis
charge Of a State duty. The officer
may be sued, but not the city. As to
that duty, the city stands as the State,
and being sovereign, can not be sued.
For example, the city is not liable for
the act of a policeman, for when acting
as policeman he is in the discharge of
a State duty; a governmental duty.
The clause in the Constitution under
which New Hampshire Is endeavoring
to act, to-wit: that one State may sue
another State in the Federal courts,
was inserted for very different purpose
than the one for which they now wish to
use it. BY the Constitution no State is
allowed to declare war, and yet it was fore
seen that a cas,ts bedi might easily arise
between two States. 1t was therefore
provided that whenever any such oc-
casion did arise, instead of going to war,
as they would have been forced to do
before the adoption of the Constitution,
the hostile States should submit the
matters in dispute between them to the
Federal courts, which it was assumed
would be perfectly impartial. This pro-
vision was for this purpose, and, as it
seems to us, for no other.
To now attempt to use this provision
for the collection Of debts due individu-
ais is to misuse the Constitution.
If the United States Government
were to buy, or, as in this case, offer to
collect claims held by citizens of the
United States against Great Britain, and |
in case Great Britain failed, or refused, to
pay, should declare war against her,
would the Administration be supported |
IN its position? We think not We
hope not And yet it is identically the
same case. New Hampshire proposes
making use Of that provision of our
which was intended simply
70 prevent war between the States, as a
mode of collecting debts due her citi-
.ens,
While we believe that the people
should not be held bound to pay debts
which were created in violation of their
and laws that were designed
or their protection against wrong, we
nave no sympathy with the doctrine of
equalization as applied to just debts
But the rule is not to be lost sight of,
md it enters into every contract when
or the sake of gain parties deal in State
,onds that no action shall be brought
gainst the State. Every man buy
NC such bond knows that he trusts !,
ntirely to the good faith of the people .
f the State knows that his bond can !.
ot be collected in court, and, if he
hooses to buy it, he must take the
isk and not ask US to break our Consti- :
ution in order that he may collect his
ebt. A man who for personal advan-
age, buys the bonds of State, or for :
ign nation, as the ease may be, takes !.
.isl- nd / Il