The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1880-04-01
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE CASE,

In the recent decIaion OF the United States
Supreme Court In the case Of the Memphis
and Charleston Railroad Company va. the
State of Tennessee. the court held that the
provision In the constitution Of Tennessee au-
| thorIzing creditors to cue the State In the
| State courts was not In effect q judicial rene
| DIV for the enforcement OF oontracte, but was
merely a consent to be sued for the purpose
| Of having an adjudication. and that there
was no power In the courts to enforce that
adjudication. or TO compel the State to pay.
The court further held that the right to sue
which the State gave to the creditors was
practically of no value TO them as means of
enforci ng their contracts. gave them no real
remedy, and consequently the withdrawal OF
the right did not impair the obligations with
In the meaning of the Federal constitution.
This IL q most important decision and fits
the New Hampshire case precisely, for that
State which Is merely the agent or repre-
sentative Of the owners of the Louisiana
bonds. can have no greater rights than were
poss essed by the individual owners, and
those rights have been most emphatically de-
clared to have no practical value. inasmuch
as tho courts haveno power to force the State
to pay.
Whether In view Of this decision, 1t Ia neeos-
eary to paas additional Legislation, we leave
for the lawyers In that body TO determine.
The purpose of the bill already introduced
was, we believe. to withdraw, "a was done by
the Legislature OF Tennessee, the consent of
the State to be sued, but inasmuch as that
consent carries with 1t no power to enforce
any adjudication that might be had the
bond holders are manifestly no better of
with IL than they would be were 1t with
drawn. Tho consent to be sued 80 far as 1t
was given by the State of Louisiana to the
holders of her consolidated bonds was not
embodied In the funding act itself. nor In the
supplemental act of 1875. but In the constltu-
tional amendment, adopted In 1874, which
fell, of course, when the new constitution was
adopted. The United States Supreme Court,
In the decision referred to above. declared
that the remedy. which Is protected by tho
contr.a act clause Of the Federal constitution, Ia
something more than privilege of having %
claim adiudicated: 1t must Include the power
to enforce the results of such adjudication,
and that only such remedies as are required
tn enforce contract are protected by the
Federal constitution.
We believe that this decision will cause the
countenances OF the able legal gentleme on
who have been retained by the grasping and
rapacious bondholders to represent them
under cover OF the sovereignty OF the State
of New Hampshire, to be 'sicklied Ger with
the pale cast of thought" and that that
State will retire from the conspiracy against
the people OF Louisiana with feeling Of
profound chagrin.
She presents before the country to-day q
pitiful spectacle In her endeavor to impair
the sovereign powers OF an equal In the con-
federation OF States, and her action will cal
forth the censure and contempt OF all those
who entertain correct Idea OF the rights
and powers of the States In the Union.
That great commonwealth should per
nit herself to be used by few bondholders
who are seeking to crush a sister State by
demanding the enforcement OF contrac
which was too onerous to be borne is con
dition of affairs which was never dreamed o
in the philosophy of the founders of this gov
eminent, and W hich will excite the wonder G
coming generations.