The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-04-16

to form the Constitution, in the effort
to insure domestic tranquility" they
took great pains to prevent disputes aris-
ing between the States by depriving then
of all power to discriminate against the
citizens of other States and by forbid
ding them to make compacts and agree
lrents without the consent of Congress;
but no method was discovered of dealing
with controversies, either present or fu-
ture, growing out of tresspasses by one
State upon the rights of another, other
than the old method of submitting them
to an impartial judicial tribunal
And while it is settled that the word
controversies" is not to be restricted
to disputes concerning boundary and
jurisdiction, we respectfully insist that
it ought to be confined to cases of the
same general kind-to those which arise
Immediately between the contending
States-to those in which. granting plen-
airy jurisdiction in the courts for ind-
vidual and State alike, adequate redress
could only be had by the action of the
State; and it ought not to be expanded
to include disputes which arise between
individuals and States, and which are as
signed, conditionally or absolutely, by
such individuals to another State for the
purposes OF suit.
This we would naturally infer to be It's
meaning from the origin and history of
the clause, and that inference is strength
ened by the decisions of this court, ir
which it has been considered.
In United States VS.. Texas, 143 U. S..
621, speaking of this clause, Mr.. Justice
Harlan says, on page $50:
"At the time of the adoption of
the Constitution, there existed, as
this Court said in Rhode Island VS..
Massachusetts, u Peters, 657 1913,
724 controversies between eleven
States, in respect to boundaries,
which had continued from the first
settlement of the colonies The ne
cessity for the creation of some tri
bunal for the settlement of these and
like controversies that might arise,
under the new government to be
formed must therefore, have been
perceived by the trainers of the con-
stitution, and, consequently, among
the controversies to which the judi
cial power of the United States was
extended by the Constitution, we find
those between two or more States"
Accordingly we find that this court has
entertained jurisdiction of several con-
troversies between States growing out OF
conflicting claims of soil territory juris-
diction and boundary, and Of none other
except in the recent cases of Missouri VS..
Illinois $50 U. s., 208 and Kansas v. Colo
RADIO, 1S5 U. s.. 125.
In each of these cases the controversy
arose Immediately and directly between
the contending States and grew out of
State action deemed by the complainant
in each case to be injurious not only to
her citizens but to her sovereign rights,
and which, if done by an individual, could
only be adequately redressed by an action
on behalf of the public-the State.
On the other hand, in New Hampshire
VS.. Louisiana 10S U. s. 76 this court held
that it had no jurisdiction of a contro-
Versy arising between the State of
Louisiana and the holders of her rcpudi-
ated bonds. and which bonds and con-
troversy had been assigned to the State
of New Hampshire by the individual
holders for suit.
1t is true that the court emphasized
the fact that the bonds were assigned
merely for the purpose of collection ard
the complainant was not the beneficial
owner thereof even though she had full
right to receipt and acqut the debtor,
but it by no means follows that the de
cision would have been the other way if
New Hampshire had been the actual own
er of the bonds. Indeed the Chief JUS
tice says towards the end of his opinion:
lone State cannot CREATE A CON-
TROVERSY WITH ANOTHER
STATE, within the meaning of that
term as used in the judicial clauses.
of the Constitution, by assuming the
prosecution of debts owing by the
other State to its citizens"
And these decisions seem to have been
supposed by Mr. Justice Miller to vindi-
cate the opinion of Hamilton that JUS
tifiable controversy against a State could
not be created by the assignment of the
debts of a State.
In Cunningham VS.. Macon & Brunswick
R. R. Co, 100 U. s., 446 referring to these
cases he said, on page $50
"These latter suits New York and
New Hampshire VS. Louisiana) were
based on the proposition that the
constitutional provision that states
might sue each other in this court
would enable a State where citizens
were owners of obligations of another
State to take a transfer of those OBJ
llSdblOnS 10 u6TSeIl anu sue inc uc-
faulting State in this court.
"Thc doctrine was overruled in
these cases at the last term by the
unanimous opinion of the Court"
See also his comment on these cases in |
his Lectures, page 3S2
And in Louisiana VS.. Texas, 176 L. s., !
/, it was distinctly held that this court |
had jurisdiction ONLY of those contro- |
versies which arise directly between the |
contendng States and that a suit cannot |
be brought by a State merely to redress
the wrongs of its citizens.
If the term controversies" is to be |
confined to those cases in which the |
controversy arises Immediately and di- |
rectly between the contending States and !
growing out of their public relations ard !
as we think it ought to be.
that is an end of this case, because the
pleadirgs and proofs show that it nCtt
only did not arise directly between the
States of South Dakota and North Caro-
lima. but the controversy arose between |
individuals, the Schafers-holders of |
those so-called second mortgage bonds
and the State of North Carolina, and the
State of South Dakota became Interested