Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-04-26
Suing a State.


New Hampshire passed law authoriz-
ing its citizens. holding claims against
another State, to transfer them to the
State for suit in the United States Su-
preme Court. The object of this action
was to evade the United States Constitu-
ton, which, in the XIth amendment,
declared in force January Sth, 1898. dis
tinctly states that "The judicial power
of the United States shall not be con
strued to extend to any suit in law or
equity, commenced or prosecuted against
one of the United States by the citizens
of another State, or by the citizens or
subjects of any foreign State. To avoid
this plain provision of our organic
law, which effectually pre-
vents a State from being sued
by the citizens of any other State in the
Union-adopted in recognition OF the
principle of State sovereignty, and
founded upon the old common law
maxim that "the King can do no wrong
the New Hampshire Legislature passed
the above mentioned act so that certain
of its citizens, holders of Louisiana bonds,
might bring suit in the name OF New
Hampshire against Louisiana. In ac-
cordance with said law a suit Is now
pending in the United States Supreme
Court by New Hampshire against
Louisiana to recover claims for debts
which the latter State has virtually re-
pudiated and refused to recognize.
The result of this suit will be watched
with great interest, as it involves several
very important questions. The consti-
tutional amendment above alluded to
was adopted, as we have stated, to main
tain the dignity and sovereignty OF a
State. 1t will be a matter of no little in
terest, therefore, to note whether the
United States Supreme Court-that pre-
sumably great bulwsrk of the principles
of the republic-will thus cOuntenance
such open evasion of our organic law. If
State has the right thus to transfer the
claims of its citizens against a sister
commonwealth to itself for the purpose
of bringing action against that common
wealth, then the aforementioned clause
in the Constitution might as well be
wholly expunged, since it virtually be-
comes, at once, of no force. The action
of New Hampshire in this matter GER
tAinly has the appearance of being but a
shrewd piece of sharp practice.
Again, if this principle is allowed by
the United States Supreme Court, the
door will be opened wide to endless
litigation. Minnesota, and several
other States. have repudiated their
obligations on various pretexts, and all
these would furnish an inexhaustible
fund of suits brought in the names of
their respective States by all sorts of real
and imaginary plaintiffs. Even GeOr-
gia, which did not repudiate, but merely
disallowed certain illegal private issues
of Mr.. r. B. Bullock and his friends
which they saw fit, to suit their
purposes, to designate as ''bonds of the
State of Georgia" -would doubtless,
sooner or later, be called upon to defend
herself in the United States Supreme
Court against the claims of alleged bond
holders. And while, in this instance, no
judgment against her could, of course,
be obtained, still the State would be sub
jected to much of the annoyance and
vcxation which always accompany liti-
cation.
Another very serious question also
arises in this connection, and that is that
even should the court consent to hear this
New Hampshire case, and render judg-
ment against Louisiana, how is the judg-
ment to be enforced7 The court would
have to look to the officials of that State
for satisfaction. and while it might issue
a mdHddmus to compel the Legislature
to levy tax to satisfy the claims against
the State, should the Legislature de-
cline to pass such an act, it would be
next to impossible to imprisOn that
whole body for contempt And even
should the Legislature pass the law, the
State officials might decline to enforce
it, aud prefer to resign in preference.
These and numberless other means
might be resorted to by Louisiana or any
other State which might feel itself ag-
grieved by such a judgment to prevent
judgment being satisfied. and if it is
determined so to do the decision Of the
court might virtually be made a dead
letter. The only result would be that, to
prevent trouble, defsulting State might
be more readily induced to compromise
her debts, and States would hereafter be
more careful how they adopted the very
questionable policy of reputation.
b 1t is to be hoped that to uphold the
spirit as well as letter of the Constitution,
as well as to avoid the vexatious litIga-
tions and numberless troubles which
would ensue, the United States Supreme
Court will not uphold the action of New
Hampshire. Still if it does, and its judg
ments, should they be rendered against
the defendant, be enforced finally, it will
certainly have one good effect. The re-
pudlation movement in Virginia would
become null and void, Mshoneism there
would be routed horse. foot and dra-
goons, and Mr.. Arthur would have the
modification of seeing his endorse
ment of reputation in that State, for
partisan purposes, prove barren of all re-
suit, political or otherwise, except to
leave an ineffaceable stigma upon his
administration.
What the railroads have done for this
country is graphically and concisely
epitomiZed in last weeks issue of the
Railloay Record, published in Atlanta.