Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1881-05-27
THE 1905
Some Law and Decisions TO Read
and File Away.
NUMBER II.

state, acting by its authority, can be
sued In any federal court by citizens
Of another state or by citizens or sub
jects OF any foreign state, OF in any of
its own courts by any of its own citi-
zens or foreigners, unless permitted
by the state, and then only strictly in
such cases in which it permits itself
to be sued. Now, as | am not writing
for the first legal talent of Tennes-
see" but for the people, you will
pardon me, Mr.. Editor, for quoting
my authorities, instead Of merely re.
ferring to them.
First, then, that the state can not
be sued in the federal courts, except
as before stated, we have the 18th
article of amendment to the federal
constitution in these very plain words:
THE judicial power of the United
States shall not be construed to ex-
tend to any suit in law or equity,
commenced OF prosecuted against one
of the United States by citizens OF
another state, or by citizens or sub
jects Of any foreign state"
This is from the decision of the
supreme court of the United States in
the State Railroad Tax Cases" re-
ported in 2 Otto, 613: And though
this Ia U. S, statue] was intended to
apply alone to taxes levied by the
United States it shows the sense of
congress of the evils to be feared if
courts of justice could, in any case,
interfere with the process of collect
ing the taxes on which the govern
ment depends for its continued exist
e ice. 1t is a wise policy. 1t is
founded in the simple philosophy
derived from the experience of ages,
that the payment OF taxes has to be
enforced by summary and stringent
means against a reluctant aud often
adverse sentiment, and to do this
successfully, other instrumentalities
and other modes of procedure are
, necessary, than those which belong to
courts of justice. See Cheatham VS..
Norvell, decided at this term; Nickoll
VS. U. S., z Wall, 122: Dow VS.. Chi
cago, IL Wall, l0S." Also this from
the same opinion, 2 0tte. 6l4: Zone
of the reasons why a court should not
thus interfere, as it would in any trans
; action between individuals, is that it
has no power to apportion the tax or
to make a new assessment, or to direct
another to be made by the proper off
GERS Of the state. These officers, and
the manner in which they shall exer-
else their functions, are wholly beyond
the power Of the court when so act
ing. The levy Of taxes is not a judi
cial function. Its exercise, by the
constitutions of all the states, and by
the theory of our English origin, is
exclusively Legislative. Heine VS.. the
Leyee Comm'rs, 10 Wall, &C.," This
is from the decision in U. S. VS.. Cruik-
shanks, 2 Otto, 553: Sovereignty for
this purpose ~(taxation) rests alone
with the states" Again, the supreme
court, in 10 Wall, $50. say: THE
! power we are here asked to exercise is
the very delicate one of taxation.
This power belongs in this country to
the legislative sovereignty. state or
national. In the case before us the
national sovereignty has nothing to do
with it. The power must be derived
from the legislature of the state"
Neither the state, nor any of its
officers, acting by its authority, can be
I sued in any OF its own courts, except
, as allowed by the state, and then
"only on such terms and conditions as
: are prescribed by statute" In sup
port Of this position, | first quote from
! the opinion of the court. delivered by
Mr.. Justice Davis, in Nichols vs. U,
s. Wallace, 126, 129. 1.-THE immun
ity of the United States from suit is
one ofthe main elements to be consid.
cred in determining the merits of thi.
l controversy. Every government has
} an inherent right to protect itself
t against suits, and if, in the liberality
OF legislation, they are permitted, it is
only on such terms and conditions as
! are prescribed by statute. The
l principle is fundamental, applies tc
every sovereign power, and but for the
, protection which it affords, the gov
eminent would be unable to perform
the various duties for which it was
created. 1t would be impossible fol
1t TO collect revenue for its support
without infinite embarrassments and
delays, IT 1t was subjectto civil process
the same as a private person. 4 ,
The prompt collection of the revenue.
and Its faithful application, is one OF
the most vital duties of the govern.
ment" quote first, the syllabus,
next, in Railroad company VS.. Tennes
see, 18th Otto, 337. Held. that the
repeating statute Of 1865 did not inn
pair the obligation of a contract. within
the meaning of the contract clause Of
the constitution of the United Statcs;'
and, then. this from the opinion of the
court: The question we have to de.
D., eide IS not whether the state is liable
Tor the debts Of the bank to the rail
road company, but whether it en- be-
sueo IN It's " courts to enforce that
liability. The principle is elementary
L that a state cannot be sued in its own
, courts without its consent. Thi,
is a privilege of SOVEREIGN
t ."-page 339. In railroad con
pany VS.. Alabama, the court "Leld
that the repeal Of the statute deprivee
, the court of jurisdiction to proceed
and is not in violation of the contract
clause Of the constitution Of the United
States. "-llth Otto, go. Also. tbai
. both states may refuse to paw tbst
Is may refuse to make the necessary
appropriation, and the courts arc
G PoWerless to compel them to do so
D IN neither state has there been grant.
e ed such a remedy for the enforce.
!, ment OF the contracts of the
e sovereignty as may not. under the
t constitution Of the United States. be
r taken away. "-llth Otto, 835.