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

COulA ph Pcbt 1Uts Sdtu.
There is another difficulty in the
case, on the question of jurisdiction.
The bond was a unit; the mortgage
was a unit; and the assignment OF
the bond by Blackjack to Robertson
in trust for the children of Black
lock was unit The bond cannot be
enforced against Small, nor can the
mortgaged premises be sold in favor
Of the two plaintiffs alone. THE RE-
LIEF ASKED IN THE SUIT MUST
NECESSARILY be for the benefit OF
the defendant Helen Robertson Black
lock, as well as for the benefit OF the
plaintiffs, especially as. by her an
swer, she arranges herself on the side
of the plaintiffs as against Small,
joins in the prayer of the BILL ana
asks that the payment of the bond
and the satisfaction of the mort
gage be declared void, and that the
bond and mortgage be declared valid
in the hands of Robertson, as Trus-
tee, for the benefit of herself and the
plaintiffs, and that Small be decreed
to pay to herself and the plaintiffs
the amount of money secured by the
bond mortgage, with interest. The
suit is, therefore, shown TO be one
substantially by and for the benefit OF
Helen Robertson Blackjack, and the
proofs show that. at the time of the
commencement of the suit, she was
and has since then always continued
to be a citizen of South Carolina, of
which State Small was and is citi-
zen"
There can be no question then that, &C
cording to the allegations of the Bill,
this suit is "by and for the benefit Of
individual bondhilders-represe by
Charles Salter-as we'll as for the benefit
of the State of South Dakota. Can such
a suit be sustained?
We think not
Without taking into account the pro-
hibitions of the Eleventh Amendment it
could rot be
This court has more than once said
that it's original jurisdiction over Con
troversies" in which States are parties,
is limited and not to be expanded by
construction.
When a State consented to be sued by
another State in a proper controversy it
certainly did not thereby expressly con-
sent to be sued by such State AND AN
INDIVIDUAL, and to hold that it did
requires ucCluculy cAPau9lNC SOhS1A W
ton.
Such is the expressed opinion of Mr..
Justice Curtis, who said in Florida vs.
Georgia, II How AIS, on page 504
THE State of Georgia has con-
scented to be sued by one or more
States, or by a foreign State, and by
no other person or body polite The
State of Georgia has consented to
stand joined as a defendant with one
or more States, or with a foreign
State, and with citizens or subjects
of a State other than the one bring
ing the suit, but with no other per-
son CIR body polite. Certainly, there is
no power existing in this government
to enlarge that consent so as to en-
brace in it anything to which 1t does
not by it's terms extend"
And we think the point is expressly
ruled in the refusal by this court, in TIE
case of Cal V. S. p Co., 157 U. s. 229
256 when it refused to permit the city
of Oakland to be Joined as co-complain-
ant with the State,
Again, under the Judiciary Act OF
1875, and probably under that of 1887
1888, the Circuit Court has no jurisdiction
unless each person for whose benefit the
suit is brought and who will, if it is
successful, reap the fruits of the recov-
cry, could maintain the suit against each
one of the defendants.
This is established by the Removal
Cases 100 U. S. and Blacklock's case, III
U. S. 95-SuDreme.
If this rule of law results merely from
the fact that the Judiciary Act only con-
fers jurisdiction upon the Circuit Courts
of suits in which there is controversy
between citizens of different States, sure
ly a similar rule should apply to suits
against States when the Constitution con-
fers jurisdiction only when the contro
versy is between 1.-TWO or more States,
and in addition that suit by AN INDT-
VIDUAL, OR ON BEHALF OF AN IN
DIVIDUAL, is expressly forbidden by the
Eleventh Amendment.
New Hampshire V. Louisiana, los [
s. ~.
The decisions of this Court upon that
Amendment have certainly not tended tt
minimize it's effects but to maintain it il
letter and in spirit.
In Va. Coupon Cases, ia U. S. 332. Mr.
Justice Bradley, speaking for the Chic1
Justice, Justices Miller, Gray and himself
said
Moreover the Eleventh Amend
ment is not intended as nero
formula of words, to be slurred over
by subtle methods of Interpretation
so as to give it a literal compliance,
without regarding it's substantial
meaning and purpose. 1t is grave
and solemn condition., exacted by SOW
ereign States for the purpose OF pre-
serving and indicating their sover-
eign right to deal with their credi-
tors and others propounding claims
against them, according TO their own
views of what may be required by
public faith and the necessities of
the body polite, We have no right,
if We were disposed, to fritter away
the substance of this solemn stipu-
lation by any neat and skilful mani
pulation of its words We are bound
to give it it's full and substantial
meaning and effect"
In the subsequent case OF Hans
Louisiana, delivering the opinion OF tn
Court, the same learned justice said:
The letter is appealed to now, as
it was then. is ground for sustain
ing d suit brought by an Individual
| against a State. The reason against
it is as strong in this case as IT was
| in that. 1t is an attempt TO; strain
l h. Ffy.N