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


solely on the character oil the parties ana
IS confined to the cases in which are those
enumerated parties and those only. Cali
lorhia VS.. Southern Pacific Railroad Com
pany, l5I Y. 5. 229, 259: United States ys.
Texas. li3 U. s. 62t.) And by the consti-
tuition and according to the statute. the
original Jurisdiction of this court Is ex-
elusive over suits between States. though
not exclusive over those between a state
ana citizens OF another State.
On the Sth of January, l7aS The eleventh
amendment was ratified as follows: "The
Juuieial power OF the United States shall
not be construed TO extend TO any suit n
law or equity commenced or prosecuted
against one OF the United States BY citi-
1uns OF anotherI State. or by citizens or
subjects Of any foreign State
Referring to this amendment. MIR. CHIEF
justice Waite. in New Hampshire vs.,
louisiana aud New York VS.. Louisiana lOs
u ). 49, NJ. said: The evident purpose
VI tne amendment. so promptly proposed
ana nnally adopted. was TO prohibit al
outs against State by or for citizens of
other states, or aliens, without the con-
sent OF the State 10 be sued, and IN our
opinion, one State can not create a con-
troversy with another state within the
! meaning OF that term as used in the Judi
clal clauses of the Constitution by assiim-
ing the prosecution OF debts owing by
oiner StateS TO its citizens"
IN order then TO maintain Jurisdiction
OF TINS blll OF complaint as against the
state OF Texas, it must appear that the
controversy to be determined is con-
'foversy arising directly between the State
Oh Louisiana and the State OF Texas. and
not controversy in yindicatiop of the
grievances of particular individuals.
ny the constitution, the States are for
olauen TO enter into any treaty, alli-
ahee or confederation; grant letters of
\ narque and reprisal;" or. without tho
consent Of congress, keen troops or
shlps If war in time OF peace, enter in .
any agreement or compact with another
state or with foreign power, or engage
I in war unless actually invaded. or in such
imminent danger as will not admit Of de-
I lay, Art. ! sec. 10.
I Controversies between them arising out
4 OF public relations and intercourse can
not be settled either by war or diplomacy
though, with the consent of congress. thew
/ may be composed by agreement AS polnt-
/ ga out by Mr. Justice Field in Virginia VS.
| tennessee. l4S L. S. 503 90 there are
many matters oa which the different
states may agree that can in no respect
! concern the United States. while there
are other compacts or agreements TO
which the prohibition Of the constitution
applies And as to this, he quotes from
Mt Justice Story as follows; Story. in
his Commentaries (section 1909 referring
TO previous part of the same section of
the constitution in which the Clause in
question appears, observed that its Ian
guage may be more plausibly interpret
ed from the terms used treaty alliance
or confederation, and upon the ground
that the sense of each is best known by
its accession (noscitur a sociis) to apply
TO treaties of political character; such
as treaties of alliance for purposes OF
peace and war; and treaties of confedera-
tion, in which the parties are leagued
FOR mutual government. political 60 opera
ton. and the exercise OF political sover-
eighty and treaties of cession OF sover-
eighty, or comforting internal political
jurisdiction, or external political depend
ence, or general commercial privileges;
aud that the latter clause compacts and
agreements, might then very properly
apply TO such as regarded what might be
deemed mere private rights OF sovereign
ty such as questions of boundary: inter-
ests in lands situate in the territory OF
each other, and other internal regulations
for the mutual comfort and convenience OF
States bordering on each other And he
adds; In such cases the consent of con-
gress may be properly required, in ORDER
TO check any infringement OF the rights
of the National government; and, a the
same time, total prohibition to enter
into any compact or agreement might be
, attended with permanent inconvenience or
public mischief But il was also there
ruled that where the consent OF congress
was requisite, it might be given subse-
quently or might be implied from subse-
quent action of congress itself towards
the two States.
In the absence OF agreement it may
be that a controversy might arise be-
tween two States for the determination
of which the original jurisdiction OF this
court could be invoked, but there mus
be direct issue between them, and tht
subject matter must be susceptible OF jul
!! dcal solution. And it is difficult to con
! ceive of direct issue between TWO States
in respect Of matter where no effort
at accommodation has been made; nor can
: it be conceded that it is within the judi
cial function to inquire into the motives
of a State legislature in passing law, OF
OF the chief magistrate of a State in en-
) forcing IL in The exercise of his discte-
tion and judgment. Public policy for
bids the imputation to authorized official
action OF any other than legitimate mo-
tives.
: AS might be expected in view of the ma.
ture of The jurisdiction, the cases are few
in which the aid of the court has beer
sought in Controversies between two o.
more States" They are cited in Wisconsin
VS.. Pelican Insurance Company, l2I U. 5
265, and are chiefly controversies as L
3 boundaries.
: In South Carolina VS.. Georgia, 93 U. S
, 4, II, a bill was hled for an injunction
against the State of Georgia, the secre
tary OF war, and others, from Constructing
or interrupting" the navigation of tn
Savannah river In violation of the com
pact entered into between the States o
South Carolina and Georgia on the 2itl
. day of April 1887. The bill was dismisse
because no unlawful obstruction OF navi
cation was proved, but the question wa
expressly reserved whether "a State whel
= suing in this court for the prevention o
. a nuisance in navigable river of tn
: United States. must not aver and shoy
that it will sustain some special and pecu
: liar injury therefrom, and such as woul
: enable a private person to maintain
similar action in another court
u SO in Wisconsin VS.. Duluth, 20 L.
37g, $50. the contention that the eour
could take cognlzance OF no question
. which concerns alone the rights OF
: state in her political or sovereign eharac
Il ter: that to sustain the suit she must hav
: some proprietary interest which Is al
3 fected by the defendant" was not passe
upon
In Pennsylvania VS.. Wheeling Bridg'
q Company, 10 How A21. the court trsate
: the suit as brought to protect the prop
erty OF the State OF Pennsylvania.