The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-03-06
STRIDE TOWARD
IMPERIALISM
South Dakota Bond Suit
Reviewed by B.F. Grady
THE 1868 LAWS HURT
The Carpet Bag Government Was Re.
sponsibIe for the Small Price
Which Was Received by the
State for the Bonds
Sued Upon.
(Clinton Democrat.)

oucu UpUH.
(Clinton Democrat) Boz.
To the Editor: That was a remarkable
decision of the Federal Supreme Court
which was delivered in the suit of South
Dakota against North Carolina; and. as
l suppose some of your readers would
like to know the reason why anybody
thinks it remarkable, / ask space to
present brief statement of some of the
fundamental principles on which the thir-
teen States entered into a Union and
OF the historical evidence that the judg-
ment of the court is in conflict with the
compact embodied in the Constitution.
1. In the first Constitution-the Ar
ticles of Confederation-it was pro-
vided that the United States in Con
gress assembled shall be the Last resort
on appeal in all disputes and differences
now subsisting or that hereafter may
arise between two or more States" Here
is delegation of ss ample power as
Justice Brewer and his four associates
now claim in suits between States; but
the judge or the layman who affirms
that this was delegation of power to
compel State to pay it's debts, acknowl-
edges his ignorance of the spirit of the
times when the Union was formed, as
well as OF the purposes of the States
when they entered into it. One of their
purposes may be inferred from the dec
laration: Each State retains its sover
eighty, freedom and independence"
2. When sthe Constitution OF ''the more
perfect Union was framed, the power
to decide controversies between two or
more States" was transferred from the
Congress to "the judicial power with
no intimation anywhere that the power
was enlarged so as to cover state debts.
If any reader thinks otherwise, let him
ina gine President Washington sending a
military force into Massachusetts to COM
pei her to settle q claim adjudged by
Federal court to be due to another State.
s. But there was inserted in the new
Constitution a provision that the judicial
power should extend to controversies
between a State and citizen of another
State the full significance of which
seems not to have been realized, as events
proved. A few years after the adoption
of this Constitution, Massachusetts was
sued by citizen of another state, as we
are informed in the biographical sketch
of John Hancock in The Lives of the
signers of the Declaration of Indepen-
dence.' Hancock was Governor at the
time. and here is what is said about
his respect for "the judicial power"
He did not. however, in favoring Con-
federate Republic vindicate with less
scrupulous vigilance the dignity of the
Sfat N
against Massachusetts,, by the court of
the United States. in which he was sum
nioned upon a writ, as Governor, to an
swer the prosecution, he resisted the pro
cess and maintained inviolate the SOW
ereignty of the commemorative com
monwealth from which President Roose-
welt appointed Justice Holmes, who sided
with the majority in the South Dakota
suit.
This resistance was submitted to by
President Washington, the Federal jul
dietary, and the Congress; and to avoid
similar collision of authority, the
eleventh amendment was promptly placed
in the Constitution, denying to the Judi
cial power the right to entertain "any
suit in law or equity, commenced OF pros
ecuted against one of the United States
by citizens of another state, or by citi-
bens or subjects of any foreign state"
Such is the history of this judicial
power" and it's significance is clear to
any intellectual fair-minded man, al
Though he may not be learned in the law.
But Justice Brewer undertakes to justify
the decision, making elaborate argument
to prove that the bonds represent a valid
debt OF North Carolina, as if the eleventh
amendment was intended to cover mono
but unjust claims against States!
But the unwarranted stretch of the
judicial power in this case does moi
stop at the decision asked for by South
Dakota; it gives notice to the benevo-
lent donors of these bonds ($1O,OOO) that
they can sell to some State the remain
ing $s5OO00 in their hands and that
that State can collect the money If
says: 1T will seem strangely inconsist-
ent to refuse jurisdiction of an
action, on a like promise made hv tho
latter"-North Carolina-"to an individ-
ual and by him sold or donated 10 tbo
iormer South Dakota. This is the solu-
ton of the problem which for MANY vears
Eas oeen puzzling the holders of the
'slecial-tax bonds" which the Garnet .hao-
Gers. with "the government" standing
at their backs. attempted to saddle on
the people of North Carolina; aaJ hence
We may soon find ourselves in the hands
o. receiver appointed by the Supreme
North Carolina thirty or forty millions
Court at Washington to collect ont oF
OF principal and interest for rhirtv-gix ~
seven years.
Thus we find the Supreme Court OF