The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-04-21
Geo. ROuntree'S Great
Speech.
IcaSrENcEp FROM FIFTH PAar-l

stand joined as a defendant with one
sloorqns 10 suozn!o qllm pue 'slBlS
uS!oLoJ g ql!M 10 's3lBlS eIous 10
Of a State other than the one bring
ing the suit. but with no other per
son or 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 ii does
not b. its terms extend"
And We think the point is expressly
ruled in the refusal BY this court. in TIE
case OF Cal. y. s. p. Co. 157 L. 6. 224.
25G. when it refused to permit the city
or Oakland to be Joined as c~o-comLlain-
ant with the State.
Again, under the Judiciary Act a
1875, and probably under hat 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 L. S. and Blacklock's case, ~
L. s. 95-Supreme.
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 a controversy
between citizens of different States, sure
" a similar rule should apply to suits
against States when the Constitution con
fers jurisdiction only when the contro.
versy is between two or more States. :"
and in addition that a suit by AN INDI-
VIDUAL, OR ON BEHALF OF AN IN
DIVIDUAL. is expressly forbidden by the
Eleventh Amendment.
New Hampshire '. louisiana, 1O8 L.
S. 70.
The decisions of this Court upon that
Amendment have certainly not tended TO
minimize its effects but to maintain it in
letter and in spirit.
In Va. Coupon Cases, ia L. S. 332. Mr..
Justice Bradley, speaking for the Chief
Justice, Justices Miller, Gray and himself,
said:
Moreover, the Eleventh Amend
ment is not intended as a 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 a grave
and solemn condition, eXacted by SOW
erelgn States, for the purpose of pre-
serving and Vindicating their sover-
0iSH llSul 10 uedl WITH In6lr cr6Ql-
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 We're disposed, to fritter away
the substance of this solemn stipu-
lation by any neat and skilfuI mani
pulatlon of its words. We are bound
to give it its full and substantial
meaning and effect
In the subsequent case of Hans Y.
delivering the opinion of the
1ourt, the same learned Justice said:
The letter is appealed to now, as
1t was then, as a ground for sustain
ing q suit brought by an individual
against a State. The reason gains
it is as strong in this case as it was
IN that. 1t is an attempt to strain
the Constitution and the law to a
construction never imagined or
dreamed of. Can we suppose that.
when the Eleventh Amendment was
adopted. 1t was understood 20 be left
open for citizens of a State. to sue
their own State in the Federal
Courts, whilst the idea of suits by
citizens of other State, or foreign
States. was Indignantly repealed?
Suppose that Congress, when propos-
ing the Eleventh Amendments, had
appended to it a proviso that moth
ing therein contained should prevent a
State from being sued by its own
CITIZENS in cases arising under the
Constitution or laws of the United
stats; can We imagine that it would !
have been adopted by the States?
The supposition that it would is al
most an absurdity on it's face"
This language is applicable to the
resent case.
When We remember the INDIGNATION
by the decision in Chisholm's
and the promptitude and unanimity
'lth which 1t was corrected by the adop-
or the Eleventh Amendment, we do
OF think it reasonable to suppose that
was intended to permit States to be
ued by the simple device Of joining a
tate as a accomplishment, or by assign
1g a part of a claim, secured by a mort !
age, to another State and getting thar .
tate to foreclose, making the Individual !
ssignor the chief beneficiary of the suit. .
co-defendant with the State, :,
a suit by South Dakota and by, or for :
ne benefit of, Charles Salter against
orth Carolina is not merely a contro-l :
ersy between two or more States, it is d.
addition to that a suit by an individ- )
against a State, and, SO forbidden. :
We go further; we contend that this !.
III is, In purpose and effects sub =
antlally-one solely by Individual hold l
s OF the bonds, using the name of the
tate or South Dakota, against the State
North Carolina. r
In New Hampshire VS.. Louisiana. 1gS. c
5. 76, Chief Justice White said or t
,ge SO: il
n one can look at the pleadinqs b
and testimony in these cases without Il
being satisfied. beyond all doubt. that k
they were in legal effect commenced.
ana are now prosecuted, solely by :,
the owners Of the bonds and cou- =
"
me same may be said with greater
'opr1ety of the present suit. -
course the scheme is somewhat
-rled, put equally transparent. In the =
:" hampshire and New York cases it Sc
is apparently thought that a contro-
rsy two States, justihable in C
is court. could be created by the in 81
Vldual owner Of repudiated State bonds
ansferring the legal title to a State for TO
in this it appears to be
ought that the owners Of a large mum di
+ nj n ho~1~