Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-05-03
CAN SOVEREIGNTY SAVE A STATE
PROM PAYING ITS DEBTS?


| name of the State, and apparently by its au-
| thority. The debt was compromised in 1874,
the State of Louisiana agreeing to pay sixty
per cent. upon the remission of the remain
ing forty per cent. The compromise was
proposed first by the Louisiana Legislature,
then by the people. Bonds, called CONSOLE
dated, payable in forty years at seven per
cent. interest were issued; also tax was laid
and official machinery provided for collect
Jog it, five and half cents on the dollar,
and paying it over. A diversion of this
fund from its purposes was declared fell
ony, and obstruction a misdemeanor, and
each provision of the act was declared a
contract between the State and every holder
of the bonds, many of which were held by
thus extinguished, then the State turned
upon the new creditors and refused TO pay
them. A new ordinance, called an amend
ment to the constitution, was adopted by the
people, by which the debtor "remitted" the in
terest due January l, 1880, and instead of the
agreed seven per cent, two per cent. for five
years, three for fifteen years, and four per
cent. thereafter was offered, or, new bonds at
seventy-fve cents on the dollar with four per
cent. interest. These facts are shown by the
evidence. Neither the State nor individuals
offer any defense for the State. They SIM
ply deny the power OF the court to enforce
the demands of justice. The State plants her
feet upon her sovereign rights. There is not
q commonwealth save our own, and only one
prince in christendom that cannot thus be
made to answer. Every State, except those
of this Union, and every prince except the
car, may be sued in a court of justice by
foreign or native citizen or subject. browns
case, ct. of claim Rep. III Fichera's case,
ct. cI. Rep. 254.) The issue of this suit
will show whether the States of this Union
are the only exception, among constitutional
governments, and stand above justice and
Judgment. This case presents the five fol-
lowing questions: a. Can one State of this
Union implead another for money demand?
State may invest its funds in the stocks or
bonds of other States. Louisiana has at
this time money deposited with it by the
government in Jackson's time. Were the \
United States to demand its return, it could
State sue another for money deposited with
it, Such deposit could be received with
the consent of Congress. The constitution
speaks of controversies between States, as
we'll as between citizens, as subject
to the judicial power. Suits on
money demands have been brought
against different States; eight such are men
toned in three volumes of Dallas. In the
case of Chisholm against Georgia the juris-
diction of the court was objected to and
decided in February, 1898, four judges being
in favor of the jurisdiction to one against it.
This case decides that the constitution in
cludes money demands. (2.) Can one State
implead another on a money demand
assigned to it for that purpose? "A State
may do anything not forbidden by the con-
stitution or by the law of nations. Its ca
pacity to contract is incident to its sover-
eighty. Whatever a corporation can do it
may agree to do. If it may pay money it
may also agree to pay it, and so of receiv-
ing money. The rule of English common
law which prohibited an assignment of
thing in action was the growth OF conditions
now passed away. In England the rule
never applied to the sovereign, here various
States have changed or abrogated the rule.
The assignment in question according TO the
law of New York, is valid transfer,
and carries with it the right to demand
payment and give acquittance, accord
ing to the law of the place where the
assignment was made. The demand being
vested in the State carries with it the right
to demand payment. The congressional
provision forbidding suits in the circuit
courts by an assignee is valid only because Con-
gress has power TO restrict the jurisdiction
of those courts, it did not affect the validity
of the transfer. The original jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court is not within the control
OF Congress. 1t can no more forbid a suit
for an assigned demand for money than for
land. Some years ago, with the consent of
Congress, Massachusetts, ceded a strip of land
to New York; if suit were brought on the
matter does any one doubt the jurisdiction
because the land was assigned in New York? |
is essential in modern society, |
as in the case of bills of exchange, and in |
clearing house transactions. The Louisiana |
consolidated bonds are negotiable securities |
by the laws of that State and of New York, |
and by the law of New York are assignable. |
Would a sanction of this suit be an evasion |
Of the eleventh amendment, doing in |
directly what that amendment forbids |
being done directly? That amendment pro-
hibits the prosecution of suit against a
State or citizens of another State, or of any |
foreign State. This is not suit of citizens,
but of State whose title rests chiefly on the
lie of allegiance and protection between the |
State and its citizens, and partly on the |
formal transfer of the demands in question. |
Is the suit then, within the reason and in
tent of the amendment? If it were intended |
to prevent suits by State for the demands
If its citizens, why was not that intent ex-
pressed? The act three years before forbid
ling suits in circuit courts by assignees
hows that suits by assignees was present in
he minds of members of Congress, and its
is the highest evidence that
t was not entertained; "the expression of
me thing excludes other things" The
eason was not to protect State from suits,
'ut from suits by private persons as beneath
he dignity of State. Also, if individuals
,ould sue there might be an indefinite num-
ger of plaintiffs, if State alone could sue
hen few could bring an action.
The real ground of the present
nit is the right and duty of New
FORK, as a sovereign State, to assert the rights
# her citizens when despoiled by another
tate, and there are no other means of re-
lress. (3.) Can the State of New York, ss
he sovereign and trustee of its citizens, i'm
dead the State OF louisiana in this court for
he violation of the latter's obligation to
hose citizens? This question has two
New York as independent, and
New York as a State. If independent New
FORK would be populous nation, in that
ondition she would have a sharply defined
ause of complaint. As a State her situa-
ion is changed and she cannot issue letters
+ marque or declare war against Louisians,
ut she has her means of redress, she can
Louisiana before this court The
constitution has not extinguished the old
nodes of rendering justice without substitut-
ng new. One sovereign State has the right
D call upon another on behalf of its citi-
ems; that is a right by International law
his country has often acted upon. The