The Savannah morning news., 1904-05-01

from her treasury, and in the event
of failure to do so, to order seized and
sold the Western and Atlantic Rail-
road to make good the claim?
1t Is apparent from the majority
decision of that court that loophole
has been left through which such a
decision is made possible!
The decision of the court against
North Carolina was by a narrow mar
gin, four to five. Five of the justices
held that not only did that court have
Jurisdiction of land claims by one state
against another, but that under the
constitutional provision giving one
state the right to sue another in the
United States Supreme Court, that
court could enforce the delivery by
one state to another OF personal prop
erty to which any valid claim might
be set UP. The four dissenting JUS
tees based their adverse opinion also
upon constitutional grounds, holding
that the suit by South Dakota was in
effect, merely the suit of an individual
against a sovereign state. or in other
words the transfer of part OF the
issue of these bonds by an individual
to a state for the purposes of a suit,
was, to put 1t profanely, merely beat
ing the devil around the stump" In
view of the evident purpose of the
holders of these bonds TO attempt a
issue, it would seem that this decision
Is the only correct one.
Would Force He Used.
But suppose-and now comes the
graver feature of the question-suppose
that the treasurer of North Carolina
should refuse to deliver the security,
the railroad stock. which is deposited
in the treasury vault of that state upon
the demand of the marshal of the
United States Supreme Court7 Would
the marshal then sell upon the steps
OF the United States Capitol at Wash
ington merely an empty claim which
would still have to be fought, or would
the United States use the force OF it's
army and navy to compel the recalci-
trant state to disgorge the security?
Under the present circumstances how
would such an act of force by the
United States against one of the SOW
ereign states, be construed? 1t would
not, it is true, be the first time It had
happened. but it would be from a
wholly different cause. Could the fed
eral government use force for the col
lection of a debt due another state and
against one of its sovereign members.
just as one of the world powers sends
a fragment Of it's navy to intimidate
weak nation into the payment Of the
claims held by some of its citizens?
What IL the United States Supreme
Court should give a decree against
Georgia on the fraudulent Brunswick
and Albany bonds. and should order,
in the event of failure to pay that the
state road be levied upon and sold?
Would not Georgia, knowing that the
claim was fraudulent, illegal and in
valid. protest even to the extent of
armed force against such seizure of
her property?
All these and many other questions,
extending to the very root OF
governmental authority itself, ques-
| tions involving state sovereignty In it's
| most essential form. are presented in
| this initial step in the Dakota-Caro-
lima decision. which is the reason for
its being declared by high authority
the most important and far-reaching
| question that has come before that
| court since the days Of secession"
The Georgia fraudulent bonds with
the accumulated interest amount to a
large sum. Legislative enactment of
more than thirty years ago and the
fundamental law of the state adopted
in the constitution of 1877, have both
declared these bonds illegal. null and
void, after the most rigid investigation
as to their status. Would Georgia per-
nit her sovereignty to be declared null
and void. and the right to be taken
away from her to denounce a steal and
to decline to become the victim of It?