The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-04-21
NORTH CAROL|NA'S
COUNSEL HOPEFUL
Judge Shepherd Concludes
Argument for the State.
SITUATION SATISFACTORY
Court Asked Counsel Many Questions as 10 How
Sou'h Dakota Acquired the Bonds--JIdge
Shepherds Powerful Speeci.---Nr.
Peckham Concludes.
Especial to News and Observer

'bp''Idl " t'"o dAA - -
Washington, d. G., April 15.-Judg
Shepherd resumed his argument thi
morning, closing for North Carolina
Mr.. Peckham then concluded for Soutl
Dakota. Mr.. Rountree and Judge Shep
herd both made strong speeches contend
ing that the court had no jurisdiction 0
a suit by one State against another Of
its bonds. During the argument the cour
asked counsel many questions, elicitIni
. information as to the manner in which
South Dakota acquired the bends in suit
the very questions the attorneys fol
North Carolina wished to be asked. Theil
answers showed clearly that the Who'll,
proceeding is a fraud on jurisdiction.
The situation is quite satisfactory tC
counsel for North Carolina, who are
hopeful of. winning.
JUDGE SHEPHERDS ARGUMENT.
Judge James +. Shepherd, who began
his argument for North Carolina OF
Tuesday, concluded yesterday. His
speech was a powerful, learned presenta-
ton Of the case for his State. He spoke
from a supplemental brief for North
Carolina, written by himself, to supple
ment some of the contentious presented
by Mr.. Rountree. Following the mag
n%iticent speech of Mr.. Rountree, it added
tremendous force to North Cardinals
side in the great suit.
Some of the principal contentious in
Judge Shepherds argument were as fol-
lows:
N controversy within the meaning of
the Constitution is presented in this suit
betWeen the complainant and the defend
ant States, in which a decree can be
made and enforced against the defendant
State or it's property.
In an elaborate review of the cases in
which this court has assumed original
jurisdiction under the judicial clause of
the constitution, the opinion in Missouri
V. Illinois $50 Z. s., 208), did not disclose
any IN which such jurisdiction had been
entertained for the purpose of enforcing,
the public obligations Of one State in a
suit brought by another much less where
the complaining State was the voluntary
assignee OF parties who could not them
selves SUE.
"A judgment is prayed for against the
State for the amount due and the sale by
foreclosure Of property owned by and in
the actual possession of the State tha
dividends from which constitute a consid-
cradle part of it's necessary reyenue)
and the application of the proceeds to the
entire mortgage Indebtedness. all Of
which is held by Individuals, except the
ten bonds sued upon. In other words.
such property. now in the possession Of
the State, and such revenue tberefrom
is to be wrested from its possession and
enjoyment, and its fiscal affairs and other
internal regulations disturbed and TO q
great extent controlled by the judicial
power of this court.
we do not consider that we are over
adventurous in saying that in the adon-
ton of this brief, general and indefinite
Jurlsdictional clause, the granting of
such a power to the Federal judiciary was
never FOR q moment contemplated. and
that if the trainers of he Constitute,
mad considered that it conferred such .
power, so utterly at variance with tne
1undamenta principles of the government
they were constructing, the clause would
nave been instantly rejected. We saw
furthermore, that, had it been understood
mat u a power would be claimed. who
can doubt that the States while narmit
ting one State to sue another in certain
- CSoIy ehcluO6Q Inc
power here claimed at the time of The
OF the Eleventh Amendment?
The proposition to which we have re-
lerred, and upon which this suit is pred
1cated. has never received the deliberate
consideration Of this court. Indeed, we
may safely assert that it has never been
presented, and that this is the first time
that the court has been confronted with
SliCN 4 tn orl
III us solution the court will not, as it has
uecldreo' De governed by the mere lit
eral comprehension of the judicial clause
WIS V. feilcan Co, supra), but it will
look into its Historical origin, and ,,non
mat as Wen as the whole Constitution
and the character Of the government oo |
taplisned py 1t, determine whether Judi |
clal power has been conferred in resnect
TO the case before it.
me controversies existing between the !
were Well known at the time of
me auoption OF the Constitution. and al |
'housh a tribunal had existed under the
Al ticles OF the Confederation for their de- |
.eilhlnation' only eight cases were |
'ioushl pefore 1t, and these involved
.oleiy questions OF boundary and the like. |
While the language of the articles es-
Su1u lIiDuudl, was even mora |
comprehensive in it's terms than the in
aleial clause of the Constitution, it was
never suggested that it conferred iuris-
uicllon 10 compel the payment of the
pubic obHgations of a State. IT was
thoroughly understood, and we NAV cav
! I > no" so understood, that these rested
'nllrely upon moral sanction and the
sood Ialtn of the States.
inns consensus of opinion does NOT wo
most respectfully submit, rest upon the
mere narrow technical ground as TO wbo
nay be parties to suits, as it is well sat-
lea that Il state may, in some casas he
by another State. The question =
me or far higher eminence. as if involves
he inquiry whether the several Sto+o.
composing the Union granted TO the i,
1icial department Of Tho Federal govern !
nent such an extraordinary power as i
claimed in the present case.
There are certain general princinloe
underlying this government which wa!
forbidS such a construction. W.,