The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-04-15

caused such universal alarm in the States
and produced the movement for the
! passage of the Eleventh Amendment. >"
| (Quotation.)
1T was certainly the opinion of Hamil-
ton, before the adoption of the Eleventh
Amendment Isl FederalisD, as the above
quotation shows it to nave been the
opinion of Chief Justice Marshall, after
| its passage that the States were ia 10
danger of being coerced in the payment
| OF their debts by an assignment of them
| to any one. Indeed. it was the opinion
of that great judge that to prevent
State from being coerced in the pay
ment of their debts was the primary
cause of the Eleventh Amendment. Such
also is the expressed opinion of Mr. JUS
tice Miller, in his lectures on the Con-
stitution, page 3S2."
"III. If suits can be brought against
a State upon bonds so assigned TO anoth-
or State the present suit cannot be main
| tanned, because it is suit by the otate
| of South Dakota and Charles Salter' rep
resenting all individual bondholders OF
the same class, against the State of North
| Carolina and Simon Rothschilds, repre-
senting all of the first mortgage bond
holders.
"Of course this is not the form in which
the parties have been arranged by the
complainant in the pleadings, because II
| it had been, the court would probably
have refused to permit the filing of the
| bill at ALL Such, however, is in effect
| in substance, if not in form, this suit
IF we look at things and not at names
at substance and not at forms, as courts
of equity always do, this is manifest"
| If this is done, it will be found that the
real controversy is: The State of South
Dakota and Charles Salter, representing
! himself and all individual holders of sec
ond mortgage bonds, against the State OF
North Carolina and Simon Rothschilds,
representing himself and all other hold
ers of the first mortgage bonds. So ar
ranged would this court have jurisdiction
of the cause? We think not. Such
suit was not within the grant of jurisdic-
ton by the Constitution as originally
adopted.
And it has been held that if suit
! is instituted between competent persons
others having the requisite
Interest are entitled to intervene, and il
they do intervene, and do not have
the requisite diversity of citizenship, the
Jurisdiction of the court is ousted.
IF this be required merely because the
Judiciary Act only confers jurisdiction
on the Circuit Court of controversies be-
tween the citizens of different States, a
fortiori, ought to be so held when the
Constitution confers jurisdiction upon
this court only of controversies between
two rmore States?" and in addition
to that, the Eleventh Amendment ex-
lpressly prohibits suits by individuals
against a State
1--WE may safely conclude. then that nc
court has jurisdiction of an action
brought by a State and an individual
against another State, first, because it
is not within the original grant of judi
cial power; and second, because 1t is for
hidden by the Eleventh Amendment.
1t was further contended that this suit
lis commenced and prosecuted by, or foi
the benefit of, individuals
The case of New Hampshire V. Louis
lana los II. c., rs. establishes the prop
POSITION that an individual can not invoke
tho original jurisdiction of this court il
a suit against one State by using the
name of another State-that a State car
not maintain a suit against another State
on behalf of private individuals.
In that case. the Chief Justice, OF
pare 50. said:
No one can look at the pleadings and
testimony in these cases without beins
satisfied beyond all doubt. that they
iwere, in legal effect, commenced, and arr