Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-04-25
A GREAT TEST CASE,
Which, If it is Decided Against Louisiana,
VIII Forever Settle the Question Of
State Debts and Leave
The People Free to Attend to More Pref
itabls Questions of State Economy
Judge CampbelPs Argument.

L QltSu states IN the controversy DEtNtCu the
State of New York and the State OF Louisl-
ana and others. The suit has been pending
for some time, its object being to secure re-
dress for citizens of New York whose claims
against the State of Louisiana have been
openly repudiated. Prior to 1874 debt OF
many millions had been contracted in the
name Of the State, and in that year COM
promise was effected, the State agreeing TO
pay sixty per cent. upon the remission OF the
remaining forty. The compromise was pro-
posed first by the Legislature and then by
the people. Consolidated bonds, payable in
forty years, with interest al seven per cent,
were issued. A tax was imposed on all prep
erty in the State for the purpose OF meeting
the claim, and the auditor and treasurer and
a Board OF Liquidation, consisting of the
governor, lieutenant-governor, auditor, treas
urer, secretary OF state, speaker OF
the House of Representatives and the
fiscal agent, were directed 10 assess and
collect and pay the bonds, many of which
are held by citizens of New York. By this
means the old deb. was extiDguished. Five
years later the State turned upon the new
creditors and repudiated their dem lands. By
a constitutional amendment the interest due
January !, 1880, was "ramiited," and the
bondholders were offered the option of TAX
Ing, instead OF seven per cent. interest every
year, two per cent for the hrst i've years,
after January, 1880, three per cent. for the
next fifteen, and four per cent. thereafter, or
new bonds at the rate OF seventy five cents
on the dollar with interest at four per cent.
The State of Louisiana and the financial
officers above mentioned who are the indi-
vidual defendants virtually admit these
facts. They offer no defense for the State,
bat simply deny the power of the Supreme
Court of the United States to enforce the
claim of the State of New York. The coun-
sci for the plaintiff claim that if any State
bau donna nd anaipst onOfhar State
it may as a general rule bring the matter
before the Supreme Court as a controversy
between the two. In support of this prop
osi ion they cite the language Of the con-
stitution, which certainly seems free from
any ambiguity. They also cite several
judicial decisions to prove that money de-
mands such as would be included in a case
like this are provided for by the constitution.
Another vital point is, can one State implesd
another on a money demand when the de-
mand has been assigned for the purpose of
suing? Counsel for the plaintiff claim that
an assignment by citizens of New York to
the State of New York is a valid transfer,
and that the demand thus vested in the State
carries with it the right to demand payment
and to give an acquittance when payment Is
made. Authorities are quoted to show that
one State can sue another for a money
demand whenever the pursuing State has
valid title to such cause of action.
NEW YoRK's DUTY.
1t is urged also that it is the right and
duty of New York as a sovereign State
sovereign in all things save as subordinated
to the Union by the federal compact-to as
sert the rights of her citizens when they have
been despoiled by another State and there
are no other means of redress Natteii, Pat
rick Henry, Manning, Phillimore and Twiss
are cited to show that the State of New York,
as the sovereign and trustee of the citizens
of the State, can impIead the State OF Louis
lana in the Supreme Court for the violation
of the latter'5 obligation to those citizens.
Not content with these great authorities on
International law, Grotius is also advanced
as having been in favor Of the point in ques-
ton, and the Oldest example given In Hcmer
, is quoted, where Nestor says he took the
aocks and herds of the Elidians as reprisals
for his fathers horses, and he goes on to tell
how he summoned ali those TO help him who
had any debts owing from the Elldians.
Another point on which the plaintiff relies
is that if suit against the Stale itself could
not be maintained in the circumstances of
the present case, the financial officers of the
State can be required, by judgm mt of the
Supreme Court, to apply the money in their
hands to the payment OF interest on the
| consolidated bonds according to the
compact of 1874. Public funds appro-
| priaIed to individual uses have been
cess, and as the debt ordinance eli 1879 is in
valid, the law and ordinance of 1874 is still
| in full force. Should the money now in the
hands of the financial officers of the State
prove insufficient to pay the interest accrued,
the plaintiff claims that these officers may be
ordered by the court TO proceed in the e1ecu-
ton of the contract, assess and collect the
tax, and out of the proceeds discharge the
| arrears In exercising its jurisdiction upon
the theory thus commended for, the court is
| asked to give the sanction of law 20 the die
tates of morality. The history of Louisiana
reputation is characterized as a history of
| shameless perhdy. 1t can only be accounted
for upon the supposition that majority OF
| the people of the State considered themselves
| as much beyond the reach of law az they
were beyond the influence of the worlds
opinion If they should be adjudged free of
all restraint, the plaintiff counsel urges they
| would be enrolled among those whom, TO use
| the fiery language of Burke, mo treaty and
no signature could bind, !" and against whom
the faith which holds the moral elements of
the world together was no protection"
Judge John a. CampbeII's Argument
WASHINGTON, April 24.-In the opinion
of the Supreme Court the argument which
was conc ,uded to-day of Judge John A.
Campbell in the louisiana bond case, is the
ablest that has been delivered before that
| court for twenty years. The case involves
eventually many millions Of dollars, but in
wolves Immediately some delicate and i'm
| portant questions of law and OF constitu-
tional Interpretation. The State of New
| York on the one hand and the State OF Lou
| isians on the other are parties to the pend
| ing suit, which is a test case. The State of
| New York has authorized by law the citi-
| zens holding obligations of or against
another State to transfer the claims to the
/ ~, IN ba of tho s. a 70
of New York against the debtor State for
recovery. 1t is alleged on the one hand that
| this brings claims such as these now pend
| ing which include perhaps S20,O00,0O0 OF
the debt of Louisiana, within the original
| Jurisdiction of the Federal courts. The con-
| stitution originally declared that the Judicial
power of the United STATES should extend to
controversies between State and citizens OF
another State, but the eleventh amendment,
which was promptly accepted, declared that
the judicial power of the United States shall
not be construed to extend to any suit in law
| or equity begun or prosecuted against one
! of the United States by citizens of another
| State, or by citizens or subjects OF any for
| eign State. The object OF the amendment
was to make it impossible for any man at
| his pleasure to summon peremptorIly q
| sovereign State before the bar of a Federal
court. 1t is asserted by the counsel for
| Louisiana that some citizens OF New York
and the State of New York are seeking to do
| by indirection that which is forbidden by
| the constitution to be done directly. Some
of the most eminent lawyers OF the
Senate went TO day to the chamber
| of the Supreme Court to listen
to Ex-Judge John Archibald Campbell,
of Louisians, as an advocate before the court
on whose bench he sat twenty nine years
ago. His whitened head and STOPPING
! shoulders seemed to add to the impressive
ness of his bearing while they gave evidence
OF his seventy one years OF life, but the SEN
ators say that his logic had the keenness OF
matured years and his eloquence the warmth
| of youth. Born and educated in Georgia,
engaged in the practice OF law in Alabama
| fifty two years ago, justice Of the Supreme
| Court at forty-two. opposed TO secession but
swept away by it, Mr.. Campbell is a most
interesting advocate. Mr.. David Dudley
Fled will appear in the case on behalf OF the
| State OF New York.
Resources of RuEAi+'s Broken Bank.
BUFFALO, \. Y, April 24.-The resources
Of the FIRST National Bank, which recently
failed, were S1,19s, SS4; assets, $40, 4o9
the capital stock, surplus fund and undi-
| ara lost and SS;,S Q13 besides