The news & observer., 1897-03-10
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE DE
CISIONS OF THE SUPREME
COURT VS.. SIMONTON.

COURT VS.. SIMONTON.
Prior to the formation of the Constitu-
tion in 1880 colony could not be sued
bv n citizen of another colony, but IN the
Constitution as it was first framed at
Philadelphia it was provided that the
courts of the United States should have
Jurisdiction Of suits brought by citizen
Of one State against another State. This
clause aroused intense opposition to the
adoption of the Constitution in many of
the States 1t was mainly because of TINS
feature in the instrument that Wesley
Jones. Samuel Spencer, Joseph Mcdowell
and other leaders induced the first North
Carolina Convention at HillsbOro to re-
fuse to ratify the Constitution.
1t was after the assurance that several
amendments would be adopted that the
State consented at Fayetteville to take
it's place in the Union. Among these was
the eleventh article which is as follows:
THE judicial powers of the United
States shall not be construed to extend to
any suit in law or equity commenced or
prosecuted against any of the United
States by citizens of another State, or
by citizens or subjects of n foreign State"
The courts in constituting this amend
ment, have held that not only does it pro
hibit suits against the State directly, but
also suits against officers of the State in
matters in which they are exercising the
rights of sovereignty belonging to the
State. The reason for such construction
being that to allow suits to be prosecuted
against officers under such circumstances
would be to allow to be done indirectly
what the Constitution forbids to be done
directly.
From matters now transpiring it is ey
ident to the dullest mind that the fears of
the fathers were well grounded. Jeffer
sons foreboding that the greatest danger
to the liberties of the people would be
found in the expressions of the Federal
Courts, has in recent years received mel
ancholy confirmation.
In Pennoyer VS.. McConnanghey, 140th
u. S. /, it is held that no action can be
maintained i'm any Federal court by the
citizens Of one Of the States against an
other State without its consent, and that
a suit against the officers of a State to
compel them to perform its contracts is
in effect suit against the State itself.
l,ol1 - Cs,rvN~ay,aza Tny1rsf aP l1a
United States a few years earlier I'm re
,Ayres, 123 u. S. 443), that
where a suit was brought against officers
and agents of a State, either to compel
the performance of a contract, or con-
versely to restrain them from doing acts
which they threatened to do in the name
of the State, it was suit against the
State within the meaning of the eleventh
amendment. These cases are selected
from the long line Of authorities in which
this high court has construed the clause
of the Constitution which we have
quoted, as affording to the sovereign
States the protection which it was in
tended to give when it was inserted by
the Fathers.
In this evil day, when we have seen
a great right like that of trial by jury,
which had been deemed sacred since the
days of Magma Charta, blotted out Of
the Constitution by the Judge-made
remedy, called injunctiye relief, we need
not be surprised should suppliant tools OF
corporations find some paltry excuse to
demohsh in the same specious way the
last strong hold of States rights that
recent judicial revolutions have so far
allowed to stand unimpaired.