Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-05-04
LOUIsIAsA's PLEA FOR EEPUDIA-


-,sis, Tenn, as seoon1-sIRss Matter.
THURSDAY, MAY 4. 1852
LOUISIANA PLEA FOR REPUDIA-
TION.
In the case of New York u.s. Louisiana,
now before the Federal Supreme Court,
John A. Campbell, solicitor for the de-
PENDANTS, and J. c. Eagan, encouragement
of Louisiana, have drawn up reply to the
New York statement Of its case, of which the
substance was published in the APPEAL OF
yesterday. The State of New York, it will
be remembered, is prosecuting in the Unhed
States Supreme Court its claim on behalf of
a number of its citizens against the State Of
Louisiana to compel that State to pay the
interest, and ultimately the principal, OF a
debt for which the Stste had issued "eon-
solidated" bonds. The original debt had
been scaled down, by compromise, to sixty
per cent, with interest at seven per cent.
When the old debt had been thus extin-
guished Louisiana turned round upon the
creditors and refused to pay more than two
per cent. for five years, three per cent. for
fifteen years, and four per cent. thereafter,
or, seventy-6ye centson the dollar and four
per cent. interest. New York sues for the
debt as scaled down. The Louisiana state
ment is, in substance as follows:
1. The judicial power of the United States
does not extend TO any suit Of an individual
or corporation against State. This immu-
nifty comes from a constitutional provision
as an incident of the sovereignty which e1-
listed before the constitution was made, and
asserted by the States from the declaration
of their independence. No United States
court has rendered final judgment in any
such suit since the constitution has existed.
2. The eleventh amendment to the consti-
tuition was superinduced by opinions deliv-
cred by majority of the judges in this court,
and the Legislatures of three-fourths of the
States concurred. The amen lment is declar-
alive, and embodies an expression of the
supreme and sovereign power within the
United States.
3. The conventions or agreements of
State with individuals create no judicial re-
lation or obligation between the parties; the
States transactions are without other than
moral sanctions. authorities are quoted at
length to prove that the only obligation of
State to pay its debts lies in its conscience and
good faith. The. clause in the constitution
which prohibits the impsiring of contracts
has no application to securities thus issued;
they have no judicial quality and cannot be
enforced judicially. The payment is moral
duty, binding on the conscience of the State.
The court may refuse to acknowledge the
validity of State law impairing an obliga-
b,t
against State obligations it has executed
to pay money.
4. This immunity the United States has
enjoyed as a matter of right; where suits
have been brought against it, it was by per-
mission Of Congress. Hamilton, while anx-
ious the government should keep its pledges
inviolate, assumes that against sovereign
power only moral obligations could be urged,
positive morality rather than positive law.
Mr.. Hillhouse, of Connecticut, in 1895, said
the government had been unable literally to
fulfill its engagements; it offered four per
cent. instead of SIX, which Hillhouse thought
reasonable. The case is analogous to the
present one.
8. Louisiana had proposed to pay seven per
cent. on a reduction of her debt of six per
cent, and 81 100000 of bonds were issued.
s,sWhen a constitution was adopted, a
sduced interest was offered, and the credit
have been paid no interest since. New
pp'oa' makes claim on thirty unpaid cou-
D "A Louisiana declares it never delivered
Gsi's.t5fid to the State OF New York. The
Few York Legislature passed an act author
izing the transfer of bonds to the State in
this manner. In 1879 New Hampshire
passed act for the same purpose. New
York is volunteer lending her name in
behalf of her citizens. No citizen or foreign
subject can prosecute such claim. New
York has sovereign immunity from all
suits-congressional annals show that she
successfully INSTRUCTED an act to enable New
Jersey to settle in this court controversy as
to jurisdiction and boundary, and her oppo-
sition to the jurisdiction when asserted in
this court. Those who took the bonds of the
State knew they could commence no suit,
nor has any been announced, except under
the acts passed IN New Jersey and New York,
in this court.
6. New York contends that the exclusion
of the United States and citizens from suing
a otdlC NJ hCSAtdtOh Ou tue part VI
the people to invade the immunity of the
States; New York empowers her citizens to
assign their demands to the State; New
Hampshire authorizes bondhoiders to sue in
the name of the State. Another State besides
New York may, if it will, allow any claim
held against anyone, at home or abroad, TO
make assignment The plaintiff contends
that whenever State obtains assignments
the constitution affords a tribunal for the
determination of the suit. This claim to
sue is not dependent upon any fact affecting
the residence or citizenship of the assignor.
The barratry and maintenance involved
would be conspicuous if the invitations of
the act to make assignments were addressed
to all men instead of being limited to United
States citizens. A citizens assignment does
not legally vary from a strangers. The
faculty conferred by its Legislature upon
the State OF New York to bring suits here
involving controversies with other States
or citizens, is a faculty denied to
the United States and their citi-
zens. Controversies between States must
be shown to the court as the ground of juris-
diction. The grant OF power to sue is special,
circumscribed and particular. The contro-
versy must exist between the States and not
between others, for controversies between
States are unlike those between individuals;
Roman jurists so distinguished; they arise
ont of public relations and intercourse in
volving corporate or political rights.
T. In colonial times such disputes were
settled by the king in council, without dis
pute; had he undertaken 10 collect the debt
of citizen by suit, there would have been
dispute. The acknowledged jurisdiction OF
the crown in questions OF jurisdiction and
boundary devolved upon the confederation
congress; it was by the constitution trans
ferred to this court. In 1914 Kentucky
sought authority from Congress to settle
boundary with Tennessee; il was not OBJ
tanned. Other similar attempts were made
unsuccessfully.
8. An application to Massachusetts to do
what New York and New Hampshire are
now aiming at metwith no sanction, for the
object is 10 subordinate this court 10 aims
and emoluments of jobbers in stocks and Sc
curities. New Hampshire sues for S2l0,
New York for s1O5o; both acknowledge that