The New Orleans daily Democrat., 1880-03-13

NEW HAMPSHIRE vg. LOUISIANA.

II Ia scarcely possible TO overestimats the
gravity and Importance of the suit which has
been brought by the State OF New Hampshire
against tho sovereign State of Louisiana. 1t
may properly be designated a suit to test the
sovereign character of the States which
compose the Union. and the result will be
watched with tho greatest anxiety by all
those who cherish the principles upon which
this government wac founded, aud who plain.
" SEQ Ia this bold attempt to interfere In the
administration OF tho local affairs OF this
StAte-a deliberate purpose to centraliae
power and destroy tho republic itaelf. II con-
trary TO the teachings Of the past. In defiance
of the constitution and Ut the views held by
Madison. Mason, Marshall. Hamilton and
all tho able jurlsts who have considered
the subject Of tho relation Of tho
States to the Federal government. Il
be now held that sovereign State
may. like an individual, be dragged into court
and her will placed Ia subiection to tho will
Of her agent, then, indeed. has the very es-
senoo of our liberty departed. and the empty
forms will not long remain to cheat the imag-
ination. There is but one means known by
which sovereign can he coerced, md when
that means is invoked courts Of justice are
closed and laws are silent. The attempt,
therefore. OF certain holders Of the bonds OF
this State to secure the payment thereof by
the transparent subterfuge Or inducing New
Hampshire to bring euit fer them before the
Supreme Court OF the United States lunder
the idea that what they could not Individual
ly accomplish might be done by state) is
tai ht,f 81
to common sense and should be reprobated
by all who desire the perpetuity of tho
Union.
The shameful spectacle Of great State
playing the part Of a catspaw for few
greedy bondholders who demand. like Shy
lock. their pound Of flesh, is one that should
be rendered impossible hereafter by deei-
ston 90 clear and pointed as 10 make the ac-
commodating officials OF New Hampshire
realize the unfriendly aud disreputable char
acter Of their action. Aside from the palpable
absurdity OF suing q sovereign this case bears
upon Ia face the evidence of fraud. and we
cannot believe that the Supreme Court will
seriously entertain suit which has SO mani.
festly been trumped up for the occasion, and
Ia which the ownership Of the bonds involved
Is 80 clearly not In the State OF New Hamp-
SHIRE Mr.. Sage, in his elaborate argument
On this case, very forcibly says:
This is the case: New Hampshire sues Lou
isiana In the Federal Supreme Court which
has original jurisdiction over controversies
between two or more States, declaring Las as
siEnee2) on debts contracted By the defendants,
70 citizens who cannot sue her. and who agreed
virtually atd legally to take her pliRhted faith
az tho obligation OF the contract; and demands
OF the said court Judgment and execution
Nv 9ainst tho said debtor state.
:, The very first idea is the startling one. that
the court. whose existence and power come
solely from the political people. can force the
said political people to pay debts that all tho
world understood to be based alone on their
honor and good faith.
The obtig,e understood and wished to evade
this: contrived do ige; sought an auxiliary:
[ound New HAMPSHIRE; combined with her;
aud now they move the supreme tribunal of the
to act. in fraudenl legis. with
hem. to do indirectly. witt these bonds. what
he constitution prohibits to be done directly.
II thts test case be successful New Hamp-
hire. Massachusetts. Connecticut. New York