The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-04-16
GEO. ROUNTREE'S
GREAT SPEECH
As Delivered in the South
Dakota Suit.
A MAGNIFICENT EFFORT
Shows the Court Has No Jurisdiction in The
Case---No Valid Mortgage 10 Secure Com
pananl's Ronds Which Were Dis
posed of Illegally.

| pOSeu Vi iileSdIy'
The following is the complete speech
of Hon. George Rountree. of Whining
ton, one of the counsel for North Caro-
lima in the South Dakota Bond Suit, as
delivered before the Supreme Court of
the United States:
| May it please the Court:
Most of US thought, after the passage
| of the Eleventh Amendment and the de-
csions of this Court in Louisiana VS..
Jumel, 1O7 U. s., New Hampshire VS..
Louisiana, 1OS U. s.; In Re Ayres, 123
| U. s.; Christian VS.. the Atlantic G. North
Carolina R. r. 133 U. s.. Hans V. Louis
lana, 1874 U. s., and Smith VS.. Reeves,
! 17S U. s., 436, eXpoundng and applying
| that Amendment that the ingenuity OF
| counsel for spectators in the repudiated
public securities of a State, often ire
gularly, if not illegally issued, was ex-
| hausted but that was a mistake. We
have here another and even bolder at
| tempt to nullify that Amendment, for
while this suit is in name one between
the State of South Dakota as complain
ant, and the State of North Carolina and
others, as defendants, it is apparent that
it is in purpose and effect one by indi-
yidual holders of bonds using the name
of the State of South Dakota, against the
defendant the State of North Carolina
This proposition and the evidence upon
which it rests we will discuss a little
| later.
| To the Bill of Complaint, counsel for
the State of North Carolina did not de-
mur, as probably they might with sue
h1Uq b1it IN
which they set up two defences:
| l. That this court has no jurisdiction
of the suit because the pleadings and
| proof show that it is not a controversy"
within the meaning of the judicial clauses
CT the Constitution.
| 3 On the merits: (a) There is not valid
mortgage. (b) The bonds We're disposed
of contrary to law, and the complainant
is not entitled to the protection of
| purchaser for value in due course.
We understand the law to be firmly
settled that a sovereign State cannot be
sued in this or any other court without
| its consent and the only question is
whether that consent has been given? 1t
has not been expressly given; on the
contrary, the State of North Carolina
| challenges the jurisdiction Of this court
and protests against its exercise; and if
| consent has been given at all it must
| be because the suit is embraced in the
grant Of judicial power to this court by
the Constitution.
This we deny; and we contend that:
1st. Such suit is not within the
original grant of judicial power to this
COURTS not such controversy between
two or more States" as was contemplat-
cd by the Constitution and
End. If it were originally included within
the grant, it has been withdrawn by the
Eleventh Amendment, because the suit is,
in effect, suit by, or on behalf of, pri-
vate individuals against a State.
The clause of the Constitution confer
ring original jurisdiction upon this court
to hear and determine controversies be-
tween two or more States has received
much consideration within the last few
years, but the court has uniformly re.
fused to give an authoritative definition
of the word Controversies" and has de-
cided each case upon it's own merits
upon consideration of whether it did or
did not come within the true meaning
and spirit of the Constitution; and while
the cases have been too few to enable is
to formulate a rule for the solution of
each case as it arises, we do know that the
in all suits against States, and that it
is not alone sufficient for him who as
serts such jurisdiction to appeal to tho
letter of the Constitution: I'VE must
look" as Mr.. Justice Shiras said in Mis-
SOUR VS.. Illinois. mot merely to its lam
guage but to it's historical origin, and
to those decisions of this court in which
its meaning and the scope of it's. opera
tions have received deliberate considera-
ton"
The genesis of the clause is said to De
found in the experience of the colonies
and Of the States under the Articles of
Confederation.
At an esrly period in our history sharp
disputes arose between the colonies as
to boundaries and other questions one OF
which, relating to boundary-that be-
tween Pennsylvania and Maryland-was
decided by Lord Hardwicke in the Court
Of Chancery; and so when the Articles
of Confederation came to be agreed TO
they contained a clause comforting jurs-
dict'on upon Congress to decide disputes
between two or more States concerning
boundary. jurisdiction or any other cause
whatever" "
Notwithstanding the comprehensivenesS
of this grant and the fact that bitter dis |
putes arose between some of the States, |
growing out of injuries inflicted upon the
citizens Of some by tho discriminating
and hostile commercial and monetary
laws of others-Connecticut in retalia- |
tion. going so far as to pass laws for |
bidding her courts to try cases OF Rhode |
Island creditors against Connecticut debt !
ors. (Fords note to 7th Fed.) Not |
single controversy of such nature was !,
submitted, while one arising directly be- |
tween the States out of conflicting claims '
of boundary had been determined, and