The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-10-16
AN INTERESTING PRECEDENT.
From the Times-Herald.

From the Times-Herald.
The ninth amendment to the constitu-
ton of the United States reads: The
powers not delegated to the United States
by the constitution nor prohibited by 1t 10
the states are reserved to the states re-
spectively or to the people," The first
paragraph OF the second section OF Ar
ticle Ill. of the constitution, touching tu-
dicial power, makes the federal courts ex-
clusively iurisdictional In questions be-
tween q state or the citizens thereof and
foreign states, citizens or subjects.
--.ll:-
1t has been assumed by foreign govern
ments from time to time that under this
prescription a sovereign state of the fed
eral union might be coerced into consid-
Grafton of such questions as those aris.
ing. for example, out OF damages Claimed
by the heirs OF some of the Italians whose
lives were taken by a New Orleans mob.
But, as was clearly laid down by Mr..
Blaine in the correspondence on that sub
ject, the judicial power of the United
States cannot cross the threshold OF a
duly organized state court Italy was with
out recourse except on appeal to con-
gress for a sratuity or to the state depart
ment for discreet use of funds placed law
fully at its disposal for such purposes.
While Italy could not reach the SOW
ereign state of Louisiana by any route
known to the federal constitution. judi
cial or executive, to obtain redress for in
jures to Italian subjects, the government
OF Great Britain has found a way to cross
the threshold of the sovereign state of
New York to secure pardon for a subject
of her majesty serving sentence for COM
mission of a crime under the laws OF that
state. The case was one involving not Ju-
dicial but executive clemency. The Brit
ish subjects pardon was prayed to Gov
einor Morton; and as soon as friends OF
John Curtin Kent. a citizen of the state
of New York, learned this, they suggested
that her majesty's government release
Kent as a courtesy in return for enlarge
ment Of the British subject Kent was dy-
ing in a British penitentiary for having
engaged in an attempt, according to an
informer's testimony, against the sover-
eighty Of her majesty in Ireland, his ma
tive county. The exchange Of civil pris-
oners was effected.
-.lI.--
State rights doctrine thus acquires fresh
and In some respects novel interest. The
precedent in the case Is suggestive OF
large possibilities. These possibilities are.
1t is true, narrowed by conceivable neces-
sary conditions. But In their narrowest
vista the political consequences involved
are Of high importance. Under the inter-
probation accepted in the !ew York case
states of the American union may have
direct relations with foreign governments
to q degree assuredly not contemplated
Arising out of this Interpretation OF the
power of the state Of New York. whose
constitutonality Is above dispute, for
eign governments reach even American
legislatures indirectly; and state elections
may yet turn upon issues that may be pro-
jected into campaigns in relation to con-
troversies between individual states and
foreign powers.
---:I:-
1t may yet be necessary to amend the
81 ttn Tnitf fnI a nc cn a q m
avert complications not beyond possibil-
ity under an elastic use Of state constitu-
tional reserve. In what direction such
amendment would be approved is prob
lem whose discussion Is not likely to be
either brief or passionless