Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-03-04
TO SUE HIS STATE.
THE RIGHT OF a CITIZEN TO PERFORM
THIS FUNCTION.
This Interesting Question Considered by
the United Statessupreue Court
In a Louisiana Case.
rBy telegraph to the DIspatch.l

by telegraph TO the Dlspatch.l
WASHINGTON. March 3.-The Supreme
Court to-day rendered an opinion IN the
case OF bernard y. Harms, plaintiff IN error,
-. The State Of Louisiana, brought here on
On appeal from the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Eastern district OF
Louisiana it is said that from ten to twelye
million dollars are involved in the case, the
decision OF which turns upon an important
constitutional question OF ne rlght OF q
citlzen TO sue his State. IL Is sald TINS
question has never been decided. Harms -
owner Of considerable amount OF CONSOLE
dated bonds Of the State OF Louisiana.
When the state issued these bonds IT made
provision for the levy ofaspecial tax to meet
the interest and principal OF these bonds.
II furthermore declared the bonds 10 Gre
ate the contract between the State and the
hondholders should not be impaired and
declared that Judicial power should be OK
ercised whenever necessary 10 secure the
levy and the collection Of tax and pay
ment OF the bonds. The state COnstltu-
ton adopted IN 1879. however partly repu-
dated this agreement and directed that
tine revenue collected by the levy OF
special interest tax should be diverted
20 detray the expenses of State GOV
ment. Harms, who is q citizen Of LOuisi-
800 ''hhAr AA sun 90 44sAfN AAAN NV tt't'NN
Constitution declared invalid 50 fur a. 1t I'M
paired the contract between the State and
bOndhoiders on the ground that It violated
the Constitution of the United States. Tho
STATE set up the plea that II could not be
sued by one of its own citizens without It's
consent. and the Circuit Court deciding
the question in favor Of the State, the case
comes here for final decision.
Justice Bradley in his opinion affirming
this Judgment says that If, rs the plaintiff
in error contends. he has the right to
maintain the suit because he is n citizen OF
Louisiana, and not OF some other State,
then we should have the anonymous result
that in cases arising under the Constltu-
ton Of the United States that a State
could he sued in the Federal courts by
its own citizens. though not by citizens
of other States, for this is forbidden by
the eleventh amendment. II tins IS the
necessary consequence Of the language of
the Constitution and the law the result Is
no less startling and unexpected than was
the original decisions Of this court III the
case Of Chisholm rs. State of Georgia that
under the language Of the Constitution
the State was liable TO be sued by the clti-
Zens OF another State. This decision
created such surprise throughout the
country that at the first meeting of Con-
grcss thereafter the eleventh amendment
70 tho Constitution was almost unan-
mOusly proposed AMI in due course adopt
ed. In conclusion the Court says 1t Is not
necessary to enter upon an examination
Of the reasons Of tho expedieucy OF the
rule which exempt % sovereign State from
prosecution IN q court of Justice at the suit
OF individuals il j. enough 60 declare Ms
existence. The legislative department Of
the State represents Its policy and ltS Will
and Is called upon by the highest demands
of Divine and natural law to preserve jus
tice aud Judgment AMI to hold iuUolate
the obligations OF the State. ANY departure
from TINS rule except Tor reasons most
cOgcut lof which the Legislature alone can
Judge never fails an the end 10 IN
cnr the odium Of the world and 20
bring lasting injury up0n the state itself.
But todcprlvc the Lcgi5laturcot the power
OF Judging what the honor ana safety OF
hesitate may require, even nj the expense
0f Temporary failure T. discharge thu pub
lie dcits. would be attended with greater
evils than such failure could cause. 10
would in fact deprive the state Of that
sovereignty and independence IN the mnn-
agemcnt ~ it, affairs which are essential 60
autonomy and which is always understood
t. be it, rrerogatiye by ali private parties
that deal with IL.
The Court reversed the judgment in the
case of tho State of North Carolina and OF
Roberts, Auditor. .ain,t Temple, Tor the
the reasons stated in the Harms case. This
ease involved several million dollars and
also presented the question of the right OF
q citizeu 20 sue his own State. 10 came
hero on p certificate of the division of
opinion among the judge II the CIRCUIT
Court for tho Eastern district Of North
Carolina. Tho case 50 far rs Roberts, state
Auditor. wa concerned was dismissed ON
the ground that it was really suit against
the State.
EXCHANGE NATIONAL BANK OF SORFOLK.
In 1885 the Exchange National Bank Of
Norfolk. Va. had its shutters put up by
order of the Comptroller OF Currency. who
aopointed receiver and directed that the
affairs of the bank bee put IN process OF
Humiliation. The same day the private
bapkinr-house Of Balm x brothers. m tho
ncirhboring town Of Portsmouth, also
failed. The facts developed 10y an examine
ton made by the receiver led 10 lawsuit
brought I'm the name OF William II. Peters,
receiver of the Exchange National Bank OF
Norfolk, Va, appellant, against baln ~
Brothers. a ais. The Circuit Court iof the
Eastern district Of Virginia rendered Judg-
ment only partly IN favor OF the receiver;
and the case was brought 20 the Unit,
States Supreme Court, which to-day finally
decided the suit.
The story Of the failure, as shown by the
briefs i'm the case, Is of uuu 5uai interest III
view of the recent bank failures in New
York city. The capital stock of the TX
change National BANK was cj0OOOO. anu ot
fins amount the hrm of Balm Brothers
and the brothers individually held more
than one third. They were the prnclpaI
Officer, of the bank and wero the controll-
ing power in its affair. They also ran 4
private banking establishment IN IOits-
month. which they had established before
thev became interested IN tine Norfolk
bank. The following extract, showing
tha manner in which the funds OF tho
National Bank were absorbed INTO the prl-
vata bank 81 Balm a. Brothers, is from the
opinion Of the late CEiei-Justlce Waite,
before whom the case was tried when he
was on the circuit:
Very soon after Balm & Brothers be-
came connected with the bank they
began 10 absorb its funds. As they wanted
money they got 1t with or without Sc
crritv. As was most convenient Tor them.
The paper which they TOOK IL az ther
hanking-house IT Portsmouth was largely
rediscounted for them at the national
bank. The failure Of the bank was
brought about by the disclosure by the ma
tonal bank examiner OF the amount duo
the bank by Balm d Brothers. The Comp
troller in April. 1855, shut up the doors OF
the bank and took possession, The. elect
being b cause the Immediate allure OF
BAN & Brothers private bank also. They
made an assignment. giving preference to
their depositors and Others over tho Ma
tional Bank. Tho receiver sought % have
this assignment declared void and to re-
cover the banks property in the possession
OF Balm ~ Brothers.
The Circuit Court, however, refused 70
declare the assignment VOID and also
ruled that although there was no ques-
ton bat that considerable OF BAN
i Brothers property had been purchased
with money belonging t. the national
bank, Yet that it was entitled 10 the sur
render Of such property only as IL could
he traced TO have been purchased with lts
funds. Alr. Peters contended that the
burden Of proof should be upon the as
signee Of Balm AZ Brothers and not upon the
Exchange Bank. and also that the assign
ment was totally void. These Were the
two principal questions upon winch the
case was brought here, and the Court.
through Chiei-Justlce Fuller, holds that
the opinion Of the lower court WIS rgaIi
in all respects. II says that It fails T. ind
L gistrf vol I 81