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

others, as defendants, it is apparent that
it is. in purpose and effect, one by indi-
EiduaI 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
To the Bill of Complaint, counsel for
the State of North Carolina did not de-
mur. as probably they might with sue
cess have done. but filed an Answer in
which they set UP W. defences:
!. That his 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
OF the Constitution.
.. On the merits: (a) There is not valid
mortgage. (b} The bonds We're disposed
oe contrary to law, and the complainant
is not entitled to the protection of q
purchaser for value III 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 il
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:
LIST, Such a suit is not within the
original grant Of judicial power to this
taart-is not such a controversy between
W or more States as was contemplate
cd by the Constitution. and
md. If it were originally included within
The grant, it has been withdrawn by the
Eleventh Amendment. because the suit is
H effect, a suit by, or on behalf of, pri-
waite individuals against a State.
The clause of the Constitution confer
ring original jurisdiction upon this court
10 hear and determine controversial be
tween two or more States has r~eceivei
much consideration within the last few
Wears, but the court has uniformly re
FUSED 10 give an authoritative definition
' the word controversies" and has de.
1'a"1 each case upon it's own merits
"IoG d consideration Of whether it did 0,
did not come within the true meanin;
and spirit Of the Constitution; and, Will
The cases have been too few to enable Il
10 formulate a rule for the solution o
'@gn case as it arises, we do know that thu
court proceeds with the utmost caution
IN ell suits against States, and that i
Is not alone sufficient for him who as
."E'S such jurisdiction to appeal to To
l'i16r.of the Constitution: 1--WE mus
''oh." as Mr.. Justice Shiras said in Mis-
6'"Ir VS.. Illinois, mot merely to its Ian
--2Ee but to its historical origin, an
% those decisions of this court in whic,
meaning and the scope of it's opera
.t5|I- nave received dq1ihpra TO cnnSidGra
tlcn."
HE genesis Of the clause is said to .
-".ll IN the experience of the colonie
%A' Of the States under the Articles {
Confederation.
III an early period in our history. shar
aH4jea arose between the colonies a
.~o4nGaT1es and other questions, one {
'"''h. relating. to boundary-that be
."'eh Pennsylvania and Maryland-wa
.4hd by Lord HardWicke in the Coul
W. hancery: and so when the Article
Confederation came to be agreed t
contained a clause comforting juris
non upon Congress to decide dispute
tween two or more States concernir
.'"hdary, Jurisdiction or any other caus
Whatever"
Notwithstanding the comp~rehensivene:
'-ls grant and the fact that bitter di!
l"'S arose between some of the State
living out of injuries inflicted upon tt
N-,@oAs Of some by The discriminate