The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-04-15
Argument i'm the South
Dakota Case.
CONTINUED from Page onc.)

bany had borrowed say one million cash
from bank. then handed the one mill
lion to the State for one million Of bonds.
then demanded OF the State one million
cash for payment Of stock subscription
and got It, and then handed the one mil
lion TO the bank.
but the State Treasurer when he is
sued these bonds in 1867, was not re-
onired TO advertise. nor was he prohib-
lied from selling below par"
Further on comes little warmth into
the dry argument, thus There is moth
ing In the Act OF 1855 which can be tor
tared into an expression OF a purpose
to prohibit the sale OF the bonds to the
Railroad Company at par unless the Com
pany could get par for them on the mar
ket. In those days North Carolina paid
her debts. She never thought to evade
payment OF that stock subscription and.
N her bonds had fallen below par on
the market. she would gladly have given
them to her creditors at par. She had
not then descended to reputation.
AS to Motives of Assignors-Title of
Complainant" the brief says:
Where, as in the present case, the
State does not assume the prosecution
of the debt owing by the defendant State
for the benefit OF its citizens, but is itself
the real actual bona fide owner of the
debt, acquired by virtue of the act of the
Legislature of the plaintiff State by do
nation from individuals. il makes no diff
ference that the Court may surmse. or
that the fact may be conceded to be that
tho motive of the individuals in making
the donation to the plaintiff State was
the bringing of suit by the plaintiff State
in this Court against the defendant State.
at has been held in many cases that
whore conveyances are made for the
purpose of vesting title in the plaintiff
70 enable him to bring suit, the Court, in
deciding the question of jurisdiction will
not inquire into the motive for making
the conveyance where the transaction is
real and not colorado, and the plaintiff
becomes the real, actual and beneficial
owner of the claim sued on. as is the
here, under the act of the Legisla-
ture of South Dakota, 1901"
But the real warm part of the argu-
ment, the gingery part, comes at the end.
when ''Turpitude of Reputation" is TAX
en- up and treated in part as follows:
THE word reputation was first coined
in Mississippi about 1872, and became
synonymous with dishonor among en-
lightened States the world over.
IF an individual, able to pay his debts,
purposely and continuously fails to do so,
he is Justly regarded as disreputable
and in this regard, State stands on the
same plane as an individual.
Justice said Burke, is the great
standing policy of all civilized States
No government worthy of the name will
take advantage of any technical objec-
tions to avoid payment of just debt
Reputation is simply the equivalent
of confiscation. North Carolina claimed
years ago to come within the category
of an individual unable to pay his debts
and refusing to do so. and claimed to
Justify its non-payment on the plea of
bankruptcy; alleging that. she could not
pay her debts in full. and that the stock
in the North Carolina Railroad. which
she had given to secure these Second
Bonds, was without value, for the reason
that the stock was not worth enough on
the market to pay the first mortgage; and
accordingly she treated the Second Bonds
just as IL they were wholly unsecured.
THE holders Of the Second Mortgage
Bonds now outstanding declined to take
an offer of 25 cents on the principal with
nothing on the coupons, which the State
offered when she claimed to be insolvent:
but now the stock given as security for
the two sets of mortgage bonds is worth
enough on the market to pay off, not
only the first mortgage but also the
second mortgage, and leave $4,000, 900 for
the State.
And yet North Carolina retains the ~e-
curity, to pay the second mortgage bonds.
and is guilty of the monstrous wrong of
collecting every six months the inco ne
of the stock and turning ii into its own
treasury. without paying anything upon
gage bonds. although that income so col
lected every six months, in equity and
in common honesty is the property of
the Complainant and the other second
mortgage bond holders.
mo language is too strong in which
to denounce the turpitude OF this pro-
ceeding.'
NORTH CAROLINA'S CASE
Hon George Rountree. of Wilmington,
who followed Judge Peckham, first made
a full statement of the case for North
Carolina, and then proceeded with the
''The Court is without jurisdiction to
make any decree against the defendant,
the State of North Carolina, in this
cause. IL is settled law that a sovereign
can not be sued in the courts without
his consent. And this rule applies to
suits brought in the Federal courts
against either of the States of this Union.
Ii is insisted, however. that the de-
PENDANT has consented TO be sued in
this cause. and that in two ways, ID
by pleading to the merits. CD Under
the terms of the Constitution, by becom-
ing a member of this Union of States.
1.-THE State of North Carolina did not
consent TO the exercise of jurisdiction
in this cause by pleading to the merits.
"Whatever may be adjudged to be the
legal effect OF the answer on this point.
il is manifest from a reading thereof
Mm N