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

Of judicial settlement By Congress under
THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.
ard adds: "Of other CONTROVERSIES
BETWEEN A STATE AND ANOTHER
STATE or its citizens. which on the SET
tied principles of public Law are not sub
jects of judicial cognizance. this court has
often declined to take jurisdiction.
Again, in the same case. he says:
The truth is, that the cognizance
Of suits and actions unknown TO the
law AND Forbidden BY THE
LAW. was not contemplated By the
Constitution when establishing the
judicial power Of the United States
He then proceeds 10 show, by quota
tions from the writings and speeches Of
Hamilton, Madison and Marshall. aGvo-
eating the adoption Of the Constitution.
and replying to the arguments OF Patrick
Henry, George Mason and Richard Henry
Lee, that states were not suable at all
without their consent and that the Con-
stitution did no authorize suits against
them upon their debts, and quotes with
approval this extract from the opinion
of Mr.. Justice Mclean. delivering the
opinion OF the court in Briscow VS.. Bank
OF Kentucky, IL Peters, 257, 321:
What means of enforcing payment
from the State had the holder Of A
bill of credit? No sovereign
State is liable to be sued without her
consent, UNDER THE ARTICLES
OF CONFEDERATION. a State
COULD BE SUED ONLY IN CASES
OF BOUNDARY. 1t is believed that
there is no case where a suit has
been brought, at any time, on bills o.
credit against q State; and it is GER
tain that no suit could nave been
maintained on this ground prior to the
Constitution"
This, by the way. Notwithstanding the
fact that by the Eleventh of the Articles
Of Confederation jurisdiction was confer
red upon Congress to hear and determine
all disputes and differences 'BETNEEN
TWO OR MORE STATES CONCERNING
BOUNDARY, JURISDICTIONS OR ANY
OTHER CAUSE WHATEVER,"
And we have been able to find no cas-
in which this court has entertained jul
risdiction in a suit on a debt against a
State, without the consent of that Stats
save in ~Chisholm's case, and that case
was expressly disapproVed by Mr.. JUS
tice Bradley in Hans VS.. Louisiana, whC
apparently expressed the opinion Of al
the members of the court, except that
of Mr.. Justice Harlan, that the views OF
Mr.. Justice Iredell in Chisholm's case
were clearly correct.
Mr.. Justice Iredell, following Hamil-
ton, Madison and Marshall, but without
quoting them, had earnestly insisted thai
no action would lie against a State &c
collect a debt,
And Hamilton, in his Report to Con
gress, 1856 said:
SPublic debt can scarcely, in legal
,l1~oeo - 1lf;.oJ 1;tIA. -, -,.o~nr
ty in possession or in action. It IS
evidently not the first till it is re
duced to possession by payment. Tt
be the second, would suppose a legal
owner to compel payment by suit.
Does such a power exist? The true
definition is, q property subsisting in
the faith of the government. Its es-
sence is promise. Its definite value
depends upon the reliance that the
promise will be definitely fulfilled"
Chief Justice fancy in Bank of Wash
ington vs.. Ark. 20 Howard, uses thi:
languages:
Those who deal in the bonds and
obligations of a sovereign State are
aware that they must rely altogether
on the sense of justice and good faith
of the State; and that the judiciary
of the State annot interfere to en-
force these contracts without the con-
sent of the State, and the Courts Of
the United States are expressly pro-
hibited from exercising such a juris-
diction."
And Mr.. Webster in an opinion givei
to Barring Brothers,, and quoted with ap
prevail by Mr.. Justice Bradley in Hans
case, said:
The security for State loans is
the plighted faith of the State as a
political community. 1t rests on the
same basis as other contracts with
established governments, the same
basis, for example, as loans made by
the United States under the authority
Of Congress, that is to say, the good
faith of the government making the
loan, and its ability to fulfill its en-
gagements."
These expressions ought to be sufficieE
evidence that in the opinion of many c
our leading judges and statesmen Stat
debts were not made collectible by law.
Another argumen against such suit
urged by Hamilton with much force an
cogency in the 81st No. of the Federalia
and by others, is that the court Will no
take Jurisdiction of suits against State
for debts because, in the great majorit
Of such cases. the court would have n
lIOCtSS ny MlIICll u IOulu 6lIlO1tt III
decree. Indeed, the only conceivabl
way would be for the court to superced
the officers of State, having control G
it's fiscal affairs, and appoint a receive
to manage the States business.
This the court is not prepared to do, a
it seems to have put the stamp of ii
approval upon Hamilton'S argument. FC
in U. S. V. Guthrie II How. 2S4. NJ
Goodrich was appointed Judge, and, be
fore the expiration Of his term, he wa
removed and Mr.. Fuller was appointed !
his stead and received the salary. NJ,
Goodrich, being refused upon demand, til
balance of his salary, brought mandarin
against the Secretary of the Treasury
compelNits payment. Upon writ of errC
this Court said:
The only legitimate inquiry FOR
our determination upon the case be-
; fore us in this: Whether, under the
organization Of the Federal Govern
ment, or ty any known principle OF
law, there can be asserted a power
in the circuit court of the United
States for the District of Columbia,
7 or in this court, to command the with
drawal of a sum or sums of money
from the TREASURY of the limited