The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1883-01-28
A Remedy Against Rsp.Ala.i.s states

duced IN Congress to amend the Constitution
Of the United States % - TO give power to
provide by legislation for the collection OF
state debts. That any State win ever con-
sent to extend the judicial power OF the
United States further than It now exists un-
der the Constitution, 70 . good deal moro
than doubtful. At the time Of the adoption
Of the Constitution. all the States were largely
In debt. As tho judicial power had been
framed, suits for the recovery Of these
debts could DO prosecuted In tho Federal
courts, and such suits were commenced and
maintained, not in favor OF foreign States.
but In favor OF individuals. To curtail this
jurisdiction the Eleventh Amendment was
adopted, which took away from the Federal
State Of this Union by citizens Of another
State, or by citizens or subjects OF Q foreign
State But this amendment did not affect
the jurisdiction over suits againsta State by
foreign sovereign or foreign State. or
by another State Of this Union.
There can be no DOUBT about tho principle
Of public law that sovereign may become
tho assignee of debt due to one Of his SUBJ
jects from foreign State, and may enforce
or secure It's payment by such means as he
may soc fit to employ. either by reprlsals. or
by war. or by resort to the judicial tri-
bunals OF tho country owing the debt.
Whether one Of tho States Of the Union can
become the assignee Of debts duo It's citizens
and maintain suit to recover those debts
from another State is question that is now
understood to be pending In the Supreme
Court Of tho United States. But 1t
is not easy to SEQ what Ia to
be gained by further amendment Of
the Constitution, unless 1t Is intended
to declare expressly that the judicial
power shall extend to suits brought by one
State against another for the collection OF
debts due from that other State to citizens Of
the plaintiff State. OF which the latter has
made itself the assignee. II the Supreme
Court shall decide that such suit may now
10 maintained by State OF this Union, no
amendment OF the Constitution Is needed.
II the Court shall hold the reverse, tho prac-
tical question will be whether sufficient
number of the States will consent to estab-
lish the power by an express provision.
There is undoubtedly lamentable ten
dency In some quarters Of the Union to re-
sort to various pretexts for repudiating
State debts. 1t would seem, however, that
the better way to deal with this whole sub
jcct would DO for each State, when 1t incurs
or proposes to incur debt to incur 1t under
q constitutional provision Of its own that
the State should DO suable by the owner OF
tho debt either In It's own tribunals or In the
Federal tribunals. Perhaps 1t would not
strengthen the security much to make the
State suable in its own courts; but 1t would
certainly strengthen the credit Of the State to
submit itself by voluntary provision to the
Federal jurisdiction. It is true that
single State could not enlarge the judicial
power OF the United States, but It is not
quite clear that such voluntary submission
to the Federal jurisdiction would BIO open to
this objection. As any State can now sue
another State In the Supreme Court OF tho
United States on question, for Instance, Of
boundary or territorial ownership, or on
some other causes Of action, voluntary
Statcconstitutional provision admitting that
the State could be sued on other causes OF &C.
ton, might bring that particular State with
In the same principle.
But this would operate, II at all, only as to
future debts. What can be DONE or ought to
be attempted. In regard to debts that are
due and overdue. and which certain States
have repudiated or are disposed to repudiate,
is certainly very difficult question. It Is
to he presumed that the Judiciary Committee
OF the House will await the decision Of the
Supreme Court before they undertake to
frame an amendment Of the Constitution on
this subject.