New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-03-04
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN TO SUE HIS OWN
STATE.

! Orleans and Texas Pacific Railroad to"l'T as" w
State Mississippi decided in the supreme Cour' w.
dav The question involved WAS the power Of the State TO
compel railroad companies provide within the oac sep
accommodations for the two races. Inc Lou,''.'
NewOreans and Texas Pacific indicted Tor ia"uc "
DO this under the provisions Of act passed Marcn -
1889: convicted and fined. and appealed Inc 'u'
pime Of Mississippi held, the opinion OF 'us'0o
Brewer reces that the statute applied solely 10 COM
within State and that construction. being inc
OF the statute OF the State by It's hgheS'
court be accepted conclusive here The sa'-
this settled by the Supreme Court OF MIS-
sissippi" the opinion says, affects only such commerce
within the State and therefore within the phcipS
thus laid down in the ruling OF the SUI
prme Court OF the state Of Mississippi and It's Judgment
| is therefore affirmed"
| An opinion rendered in the case OF Bernard b.
Hans plaintiff in error agt. the State Of LOUISIANA
brought here appeal from the Circuit Court for the
District OF louisiana 1t Is said that rom zen
TO twelve million dollars involved In the case the de'
Of which turns the important constitutional
question the right OF citizen 10 sue his own state IL
is said this question has been decided Hans Is me
owner considerable amount OF consolidated bonds OF
the State OF Louisiana. When the state Issued these
bonds made provision for the levy OF special tax 10
the interest," and principal OF these bonds II fur'hf
declared the bonds 10 create contract between ~
State and the bondholders which should be impaired
declared tina: the judicial power should be exercised
necessary the levy and collection OF
the tax and the payment Of the bonds The State 'o
adopted In 1879 however partly reprdat'd tiS
agreement directed that the coccti by the
levy the special should be diverted 10 defray th'
expenses Government Hans. who Is citl-
zen Of louisiana brought suit to have The new State Con-
stituon declared invalid far impaired the contract
State and the bondholders on the ground mat
| 1t violated tho Constitution Of the United States
The set the plea that 1t could not he sued by ono
Of It's citizens without It's consent, and the Circus
deciding the question In favor OF the state the case
here for decision. Justice Bradley in his
opinion Affirming the judgment that H. as the plaintiff
contends, he has the right 10 maintain the sun
because citizen Of Louisiana and not OF some other
State then Should have the anomalous result thao
IN arising under the Constitution OF the United
may be sued in the Federal Courts by It's
citizens though by citizens OF other States, for
this Is forbidden by tho Eleventh Amendment. II this
necessary consequence Of the language OF the Con-
and e law the result Is no less startling ana
unexpected than original decision of this court
IN OF Chisholm agt the State Of Georgia that
under language Of the Constitution State was liable
| 70 be sued by citizens of another State.
Justice Field expressed his in the Judgment
reached Court tut said that he did not wish 10
sanction by his silence the doctrine seemed TO he ON
bodied IN language OF tho Court. He would not de-
prve the citizen Of all protection in controversies with
The States. and he also did not agree with the euogum
passed upon Justice Ereds. because this occasion
he had represented sentiment Of the country Will
| tho other justices, for the country
than he, had not.
Justice Harlan also expressed dissent Of tho
statements in the opinion, and thought there was no
occasion the reference mace 20 the Chisholm case.
reversed the judgment in tho state Of North
Carolina Roberts auditor against Temple for tho
reasons stated in tho Hans This case involve,
several million dollars. and also presented the question
~ the ri-ht Of a citizen hi, State Tn. case
Roberts, state Auditor. concerned
on tho ground that really -uit against
! the state.
1885 the Exchange National Bank Of Norfolk, Va.
had it, shutter, nut ND ordsi Of Controller Of
the Currency who appointed receiver and directed thai
tho affairs Of tho tank be put In process Of lquidatoa
The day the private banking house Of Balm Brother
IN the ncghboring OF Portsmouth. also failed.
The facts developed by examination made by the
| receiver led to law suit. brought in the name Of
| william H. Peters receiver - the Exchange National
Bank 81 Norok. Va, appellant, against Balm Bother
90 al The Circuit Court for the Eastern District %.
Virginia rendered Judgment partly favor Of the
receiver the brought % the United state,
supreme count which today finally decided the suit
The Circuit Court refused TO declare the assignment,
void also ruled that although there question
but considerable u Balm Brothers property hic
been purchased with money belonging 70 the National
Bank that II entitled to surrender of such
property only 10 could trace To have been pnr ha'ea
with IT, fund.- Mr. contondd that tn burden 81
proof should upon assignee II Balm s Brother and
upon Exchange Bank. and also that the assign
mont was totally void These were the principal
question, upon which the brought here and the
court through chief justice Fuller hold, that the opinion
ot tao lower court right all RESPECTS 1t says
That falls 10 and that the facts establish con luscy
the allegation, Of fraud and the inquiry is not whether
Balm Brother had been previously guilty q fraud or
cnh"llcncnt but whether this parti uar convey
was made with fraudulent known TO the trustees
or Tic bononciafe,.
Tho court opinion by Justice Flrd reversed the
decision Of the supreme Court. OF Wisconsin In snit
brought by the Wisconsin Central Railroad Company.
plaintiff error Price County and others. This +
suit In which the county sought taN the railroad
lay upon rs Immigrant. the question being whether tn
be taxed the Lands before patent them
issued by the TINTED States The supreme Court decides
that whore land il aona'd from the United states II be-
subject taxation and therefore holds that tn
land within the place. limits Of the grant were subject
taxation but that tho land within the indemnity limits
liable taxation until the railroad had made IT,
| selections and these had been approved
The also rendered opinion which II il thought
will the questions which have arisen out OF the
passage OF the act Of 1882 limiting the number Of cadets
who might De appointed to places in the Navy James
| p Crcnshaw csde: mdshpman who had
gone through tho siN years conrse. aat
was then discharged in pursuance Of the az o. Congress
Ic brought for salary in the Court Of Claims drg.
ing that his appointment midshipman constituted
which could not lie impaired and that he could
he the Navy except after court martial
The Court Claims judgment however against
shaw aud 80 l. the decision to-day
Justice Bl1tchiod handed down the decision " the
court in ~ James Coyne. pan.in in crlor agt
the Union Pacific Railroad Company. involving the right
Of servant corporation 10 recover damages for an d..
Jury sustained the negligence OF another feow->craa
The decision against Coyne. and similar opinion W..
rendered in he Of the Quebec steamship Company
against ia Merchant who sued for dsnagcs caused
by some Of fcow-seryan boat leaving railing
| loose
The court also rendered opinion in case growing
out ~ the failure the Fidelity National Bank Of Gin
cinna clor. tho part OF Harper. the vice.
president the wheat market The title ~ the
suit Is David Armstrong receiver OF the Fidelity Ma
tonal Bank. the American Exchange National Bank
OF Chicago IL brought here appeal from the de-.
Circuit Court OF the United for the
Southern District OF Ohio IN favor OF the Exchange Bank
Fidelity Bank drew draft for sOo 900 the Chcnl
cal National Bank Of NcwYork payable to the order Of
Exchange National Bank OF Chicago. and put II in the
OF Joseph Wiltshire. OF Cincinnati who delivered IL
Kcrshaw who placed It on deposit. The Fidelity VA
tonal pank also ISSUED letter u advice the American
Exchange National Bank. stating that Wiltshire 4 Co.
deposited IA said bank 100000 the credit Of the
American Exchange National Bank for the Of {. j.
kershaw. The lastnan,ed dcposiiors Of the EN-