National Republican., 1883-03-06


be complete, would require the court TO
assume all the executive authority Of tho state,
SO far as it related to the enforcement Of this
law, and to supervise the conduct of all the
persons charged with any official duty in
respect to the levy, collection, and disburse-
ment of the tax in question until the bonds,
principal and interest, wero paid in full; and
that, too in proceeding to which the state,
as a state, was not and could not be made n
party. IL needs no argument to show that
the political power cannot be thus ousted Of
its jurisdistion, and the judiciary set in its
place. When state submits itself
without reservation to the jurisdiction
of q court in particular case,
that jurisdiction may be used to give full
effect to what the state has by its act of sub
mission allowed to he done, and If the law
permits coercion Of the public officers to en-
force any Judgment that may he rendered,
then such coercion may be employed for that
purpose. But this is very far from authoriz.
ing the courts, when astate cannot be sued, to
set up its jurisdiction over the officers in
charge of the public moneys, so rs to control
them, as against the political power, in their
administration of the finances of the state.
In our opinion TO grant the relief asked for in
either of these cases would be to exercise such
q power
The decree in tho suit in equity and the
judgment in that for mandamus are affirmed.
Dissenting opinions in these cases were read
by Justice Field and Justice Harlan At the
conclusion of the dissent Chief Justice Waite
gave in another long and elaborate opinion
the decision of the court in the closely-allied
cases Of the state of New Hampshire and the
state of New York against the state of Louisi
ana, both of which are original actions in this
court, to enforce payment of the same consoli-
dated bonds which were in controversy in the
cases of Elliott and others against the state
ofiipprg nf Inuisinnn AZ dppidal.
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE AND NEW YORK
CASES.
The circumstances Of the litigation in the
New Ham pshire case, from which the New
York case does not materially differ, are as
follows:
On the eighteenth of July, 1879, the general
court of New Hampshire passed an act en-
titled "An act to protect the rights of citizens
Of this state holding claims against other
states" which provided that any citizen of
New Hampshire holding bonds or other obliga-
tions of another state might assign them to
the state of New Hampshire, and have that
state bring suit in its own name against the
delinquent state for the recovery of the
amounts due. Under the provisions of this
act six consolidated bonds of the state of
Louisiana were assigned to the state of New
Hampshire by one of its citizens, and the
latter state filed bill in equity in this court
against the state of Louisiana and the Louis
lana board of liquidation for the purpose Of
recovering the amounts alleged to be due on
the contested obligations. The question
raised is whether these suits can be main
tanned
After careful and thorough review of the
history of the formation of the federal consti-
tuition, and of the discussion which took place
at very early period with regard to contro-
versies in which states We're parties, Chief
Justice Waite quotes tho Eleventh amend
ment to the constitution, which provides that
"the judicial power of the United States shall
not he construed to extend to any suit in law
or equity commenced or prosecuted against
one of the United States by citizens of an
other state, or by citizens and subjects of any
foreign state"
He then says Under the operation of this
amendment the actual owners of the bonds
and coupons held by New Hampshire and
New York are precluded from prosecuting
these suits in their own names. The real
question therefore is whether they can sue
in the name Of their respective states after
getting the consent of the states, or to put il
in another way, whether a state can allow the
use of its name in such suit for the benefit
of ono of its citizens The language of the
amendment is in effect that the judicial
power of the United States shall not extend
to any suit commenced or prosecuted by citi-
No one can look at the pleadings and testi-
mony in these cases without being satisfied
beyond all doubt that they were in legal effect
commenced, and are now prosecuted solely by
the owners of the bonds and coupons. The
state and tho attorney general are only nomi-
nal actors in the proceedings The bond
owner, whoever he may be, is the promoter
and manager of the suit. He pays the cx-
penses, is the only one authorized to conclude
a compromise, and if any money is ever col
lected, it must be paid to him without even
passing through the form of getting into the
treasury of the state. The state is northng
more nor less than mere collecting agent of
the owners of the bonds and coupons; and
while the suits are in the names of the states,
the are under the control of individual citi-
zens and are prosecuted and carried on al
together by and for them.
| IL Is Contended, however, that nOtwith-
standing the prohibition of the amendment,
the states man prosecute the suits because as
! the sovereign and trustee of its citizens a
state is " clothed with the right and faculty
Of making an imperative demand upon
another independent state for tho payment of
debts which it owes to citizens of the former
There is no doubt but one nation may, if ii
sec ft demand of another nation the pay
| ment of q debt owing by the latter to q Citi-
zen of tho former, but the states are not ma
tions, either as between themselves or to-
ward foreign nations. They are sovereign
within their spheres, but their sovereignty
stops short Of nationality. Their political
status Mt homo and abroad is that of states in
| the United States.
But it is said that even if state rs SOW
ereign trust for its citizens did surrender tc
| the national government its power of pros
ecuting the claims of its citizens against an.
other state by force, il got in lieu the consti
| tutional right of suit in the national courts
There is no principle of international law
which makes ii the duty of one nation to as
sumo the collection of the claims of its citi
zens against another nation if the citizen,
themselves have ample means of redress with
out tho intervention of their government
| Under the constitution as it was originally
construed n citizen of one state could sue an
other state in the courts fthe United States fo
hmselfand obtain the same relief that his statt
could get for him if il should sue Certainly
when he can see for himself there is no neces
sity for power in his state to sue in his be
half, and VIC cannot believe it was intended
by the trainers of the constitution to ALLOW
both remedies in such cases, therefore tn
special remedy granted to the citizen himsel
must be deemed to have been the only rem
edy the citizen of one state could have undc
the constitution against another state for tn
redress of his grievances except such rs th
delinquent state saw fit itself to grant. Il
other words, the giving of the direct remed
to the citizen himself was equivalent I
taking away any direct remedy Il
might otherwise have claimed ihroug
tho intervention of his state upon any prin
ciplc Of the law of nations. It follows tina
when tho amendment took away the spcciJ