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

NANHd against connecticut DEBT
ors. Cords note to eth Fed Not a
single controversy Of such a nature was
submitted, while one arising directly be-
tween the States out of conflicting claims
OF boundary had been determined and
several others were pending, at the time
OF the adoption Of the Constitution.
When the delegates met in convention
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 them
OF all power to discriminate against the
citizens of other States and by forbid
ding them to make compacts and agree
rents without the consent Of Congress;
but no method was discovered Of dealing
with controversies, either present or flu
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 c~ontending
States-to those in which, granting plen-
airy jurisdiction in the courts for indi-
yidual and State alite, 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
,r,1 ~ H., lDl;-;,,, 1F IL. oo,,r+ -.
which it has been considered.
In United States VS.. Texas, 143 L. S,
621, speaking OF this clause, Mr.. Justice
Harlan says, on page 639:
AT the time of the adoption of
the Constitution. there existed, as
this Court said in Rhode Island VS..
Massachusetts, - 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 US.
Illinois 1870 L. s. 2OS and Kansas V. Colo
RADIO, 185 L. S. 125.
II each OF these cases the controversy
arose Immediately and directly between
the c~ontending 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,
y, and which, if done by an individual, could
Z 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, &c this court held
that it had no jurisdiction of a contro-
D., Versy arising between the State OF
Louisiana and the holders Of her repudi-
, ated bonds. and which bonds and con-
, t~roversy had been assigned to the State
CT 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 and
The complainant was not the beneficial
owner thereof. even though she had full
!, right to receipt and acquit the debtor
! but it by no means follows that the de
cision would have been the other way il
New Hampshire had been the actual own
er Of the bonds. Indeed the Chief Jus
tee says towards the end Of his opinion
"One State cannot CREATE 4 CON
| TROVERSY WITH ANOTHER
, STATE, within the meaning Of that
| term as used in the judicial clauses
of the Constitution, by assuming the
q prosecution of debts owing by the
: other State to its citizens"
And these decisions seem TO have beer
! supposed by Mr.. Justice Miller to vindi,
: cate the opinion OF Hamilton that a jus,
, tifable controversy against a State could
not be created by the assignment Of The
debts of q State.
{ In Cunningham vs.. Macon & Brunswick
. r. r. Co, 1G9 L. S., 446, referring to thes'
l cases he said, on page $50.
SsThese latter suits New York and
New Hampshire VS.. Louisiana) were
q 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
legations to herself and sue the de-
: faulting State in this court.
''The doctrine was overruled in
these cases at the last term by the
unanimous opinion of the Court
See also his omment on these cases i
his Lectures, page 3S2.
u and in Louisiana vs.. Texas, 176 Z. S
g /. it was distinctly held that this coHr
lie had jurisdiction ONLY of those contro
Is yersies which arise directly between tn
contending States and that a suit canno
le be brought by a State merely to redres
y? the wrongs of it's citizens.
II If the term controversies is to b
$ confined to those. cases in which tn
&c controversy arises Immediately and Oh
st rectly between the contending States an
s growing out of their public relations AZ
l. intercourse as we think it ought to 81
I'd that is an end of this case, because TT
n pleadings and proofs show that 1t nc
= only did not arise directly between to
a. States of South Dakota and North Caro-
lima, but the controversy arose petWee
- 81. +hO GoI0 orc-hn1dnrC