The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-05-04

judgment which it has for it's own
reasons, repudiated, even though there
be in existence no security for it, and
adds:
But suppose after the sale of the
North Carolina security, and it's fail
ure to realize a sufficient amount to
pay the judgment in favor of South
Dakota, the Supreme Court of the
United States should decide that North
Carolina must pay the remainder OF
the judgment from the funds in its
treasury? Would not that court have
just as much right to say that Georgia
must pay her repudiated bonds from
her treasury, and in the event of fail
ure to do SO, to order seized and sold
the Western and Atlantic Railroad 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.
"But suppose-and now comes the
graver feature of the Question-sup-
pose 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
Court? Would the marshal then sell
upon the steps of the United States
Capitol at Washington 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 recalcitrant State to
disgorge the security? Under the
present circumstances how would such
an act of force by the United States
against one of the sovereign States,
be construed? 1t would not, it is
true, be the first time it had happened,
but it would be from a wholly differ
ent cause. Could the Federal Gov
eminent use force for the collection
of a debt due another State and
against one of it's sovereign members,
just as one of the world powers sends
a fragment of its navy to intimidate
a weak nation into the payment of
the claims held by some of it's citi-
zens?
What if 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 I?
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 ques-
tons, extending to the very root of
governmental authority itself, ques-
tiOns involving State sovereignty i'm its
most essential form. are presented i'm
this initial step in the Dakota Caro-
lima decision, which is the reason for
its being declared by HIGH AU-
THORITY "the most important and
far-reaching question that has come
before that court since the days of Sc
cession.''
1.-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 %
There are collateral matters con-
nected with the settlement of the
South Dakota bonds, and the railroad
policy of the State that make it worth
money to the power "HIGHER up
to control the Legislature. 1t is quite
as important to the taxpayers of the
State that the crowd of looters
"HIGHER UP" be not permitted to
cessitated by the decision. The bond
holders-those of other issue as well
as Of the South Dakota issue-believe
that if these bonds are recognized by
the State it will be an entering wedge
for some MERCENARY claiming to
be devoted to rescuing the good name
of the State, to favor plans for "repu-
dating the reputation"
Georgia is in imminent danger of a
South Dakota piece of robbery. Let
Court can coerce a sovereign State,
even for sovereign State that has
sold it's sovereignty to New York spec
ulators, and there is no barrier against
the flood of Reconstruction securities
now held in the strong boxes of pow
erful interests, if the Supreme Court
should be induced to believe that the
South ought to pay them.
Is It small wonders then that the
Georgia lawyer calls the South Dakota
case 1.-The most important and far
reaching question that has come be-
fore the Supreme Court since the days
of secession" and the New York Times
declares that it "dwarfs the Northern
Securities decision?
THE CRUM ETASCO BEARING
FRUIT.