The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-04-21

partments ordained b. tho constitu-
tion and Laws. ana guided BY the
modes therein prescribed. but ~ the
uncertain. and perhaps ~contradicto-
r. action OF the courts. in the en-
forcemont O. their views OF private
interests.
OF course the argument is equally valid
against Interference aith THE Stata
Treasury: indeed the Constitution II
North Carolina expressly forbIds the
taking Of money from the Treasury ex-
cept BY legislative warrant.
L i b said that this argument doe
lot apply to the present case because
property has been mortgaged which can
be seized by the court. sold. and the
proceeds applied 10 the aymen Of the
debt. il is sufficient to say. that. as we
have attempted to Show in the Brief. no
particular property has ever been de-
signated, identified or set apart, a. COW
cred by the mortgage, and hence there is
no Wand mortgage. and complainant has.
i anything, only an action for debt. and
the argument just made is valid.
But II this Court has jurisdiction TO
entertain suits against States TO collect
debts at all. We contend that il ought
TO be confined 10 cases in which the debt
was due by one State 10 another upon
contracts. transaction. dealings directly
between the States. and should not be eI-
tended TO cases where the obligations
were due TO private individuals. AMI
which, they being unable TO collect. as
signed to another State for collection.
even though the collecting State was to
be the beneficial owner OF the proceeds
IN the first place it was evidently tie
0EInIOD of q milton fhat -ho- COp&-Ftt-
ton did not authorize, or permit, suits 10
be brought against States on their debts
as the result of assignment; for. al
though he only refers TO suits as the re-
suit OF assignments to citizens of other
states the purpose Of his argument was
TO snow that in no event need the States
fear that they would Be compelled to pay
their debts to suit IL the Federal Courts.
Apparently it never occurred to him. nor,
so far as We can learn. TO any Of the
other advocates of the Constitution
nor to its opponents-that the real dan
ger to the State of being compelled to
pay their debts by the process of the
courts, lurked in the generality of the
clause comforting jurisdiction upon this
court Of controversies between two or
more States" 1t probably was not APP
pretended by the people when the
IL ~ tS odo4ItI. IL IGo
not occurred to Chief Justice Marshall
when he delivered the opinion in Cohens
Y. Virginia, and the first intimation Of
it that we have been able to find is con-
tanned in a note by Kent in his com
mentarieS, who speaks of it but to doubt
! it.
In the next place such an assignment
is against public policy and void.
IN Ball V. Falsell, 161 T.. S. y, so, this
court said:
AT common law, the transfer of
a mere right to recover in an action
at law was forbidden as violating the
rule against maintenance and cham
perty; and, although the rigor of that
rule has been relaxed, an assignment
of a chose in action Will not be sane
toned, when it is opposed to any rule
Of law or public policy"
This language was used in the case 81
an assignment of claims against the
United States which was governed by q
statute, but it is of wider application.
The Judiciary Act of 1889, (the work o.
Ellsworth, c. j., an influential membel
of. the Constitutional Convention, anC
all subsequent ones, prohibits suits b.
the ~assignees unless the assignor cou4(
, sue, and while the act applies only Il
the district ana circuit courts, ana there
are exceptions, it manifests a genera
policy OF congress with reference to the
relative jurisdiction of State and Fed
eral Courts which may furnish an analogy
in cases of doubt.
Certainly one OF the fundamental pur-
poses of the formation of the Constitu
ton was to insure domestic tranquility
and jurisdiction Of controversies between
two or more States was given to the
i Supreme Court for the purpose Of set
Ting disputes, a~llaying strife-not FOL
the purpose of fermenting quar-
rels. What surer method or arous-
ing animosities, engendering discord anC
r~etaliations can be conceived than by eli.
couraging such suits? Such at any rate
is the lesson of experience-of tn,
Chisholm case-and assignments 70
such purpose are, we submit, against tbs
highest consideration Of Public Policy
peace and good Will among the States.
But over and above that, such an as
signment and suit controvenes the spiri
Of the Eleventh Amendment.
One of the purposes of the people 9
the several States in adopting tina
Amendment, according to Chief justice
Marshall in Cnhens V Virginia, was t
prevent States from being compelled b,
the compulsive process of courts, to pay
debts due to individuals, which neithe.
party regarded as suable when created
and, if a debt, disowned, can be collected
by the simple device Of assigning it to {