The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-01-21

this court should put tho defendants 10
their answer, and The cause should pro-
coed TO a final decree upon it's merits.
But | am OF opinion that the State OF
Louisiana, In it's sovereign or corporate
capacity, can not bring any action IN this
court on account Of the matters SCI forth
in its bill. The case involves no property
Interest of that State. Nor is Louisiana
charged with any duty, nor has II any
power to regulate interstate commerce.
Congress alone has authority Ia That re-
spcct When the constitution gdvo this
court Jurisdiction OF controversies between
States II did not thereby authorize a State
10 bring another State to tho bar OF this
court for tho purpose Of testing the cou-
stitutionality OF local statutes or rcgula-
tions that do not affect the property or
the powers OF the complaining State in its
sovereign or corporate capacity, but which
at most affect only the rights of fndividugl
citizens or corporations engaged IN inter-
state commerce. The word ''controver-
sizes" in the clauses extending the Judicial
powers OF the United States to contrOver-
sizes between two or more States and 10
controversies "hctwceu state and o.ii-
zeas Of another State and the word par
ty' in the clause declaring that this court
Shall have original jurisdiction % all cases
IN which a State shall be party refer
TO controversies or cases that are 1usticlR-
bic as between the parties thereto, and not
to controversies or cYseE that do tot in
volyo either the properly or powers Of the
State which complains In its sovereign or
corporate capacity hat It's people are IN
ljuripusly affected IN their rights by tie
LEGISLATION Of another State. The citiz NJ
Of the complaining State may 10 proper
eases, invoke judicial protection OF their
property or rights vi en- assaiiod by the
tc I'D afou 81 bas. Inn
their State cen not. even with their con
sent, make their case its case and compel
the offending State end its authorities %
appear as defendants in an action brought
IN this court II this be aot 70, We were
wrong IN New Hsmrstire VS. Louisiana.
u0s Y, s.. 76i. in Witch case II was held
that one state could rot by taking charge
Of demands o. debts held by rs citizens
against another State. acquire the tight to
bring suit 10 IT'S name IN this conrt
against a debtor state,
1 must express my inability to concur
| in that part OF the opinion Of the court
/ relating TO the clause OF the constitution
extending the judicial power OF the United
States to controversies between a State
and citizens OF apatheF Stat In re r.
enoe to controversy OF that sort the
court Save tha where none exist between
statna. e. Is not for this court 10 restrain
the governor OF State in the discharge
Of his executive functions tx matter
confided 10 his discretion ana judgment
But how can the governor Of State b.
said to have AN executive function -
disregard the constitution OF the United
States? How can his State authorize him
10 do that2 II Is one thing TO compel the
governor OF State. by judicial order ID
rake affirmative action upon a designated
subject N is quite a different thing -
say that being directly charged with tho
execution Of statute he may not be re-
strained by Judicial orders from fskine
such action as be deems proper, even II
what he Is doing ynd proposes to do Il
forbidden By the supreme Law Of the land.
J His official character gives him no I'M