The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1908-09-23

/ Of such debts can in no way affect the
rights and interests Of the State.
Having, therefore. determined the
! relation of the appellants to the
funds in controversy, we answer the
question propounded in the outset
that this Is not a suit against the State
| and that the complainant is not for
hidden to maintain his action by the
eleventh amendment of the constitu-
ton Of the United State This suit is
not against the State nor is the State
an indispensable party.
Treating the funds in the hands Of
| the appellants as trust fund and
the duties Of the trustees being clear
ly defined. the trustor is not even
| necessary party to a suit brought to
compel the trustees to discharge their
duties.
Their position appears to be that
the agents and representatives Of the
debtor should constitute a tribunal alb.
solute in its character to arbitrarily
pass upon what, If anything, is due
as alleged creditor, and If claim be
adjudged invalid, to put an end
to it without further opportunity
for redress on the part of the
| creditor. To uphold such a conten-
ton would be to deprive such cred
itor OF his property without due pro-
cess of law.
"The court further announces that
in the conception and adoption of the
eleventh amendment it never entered
the minds Of the trainers of that
amendment that sovereign State
would engage in the liquor business
and become a trader by buying and
selling an article Of common traffic in
competition with the citizens Of the
country. 1t may be questioned, there
fore, whether the State Of Sotuh Caro-
lima was exercising a governmental
prerogative in performing a function
necessary or properly incident to it,
autonomy as a State.
Meaning of the nth Amendment.
In reference to the provisions Of the
eleventh amendment, Judge Boyd
uses the following language:
Undoubtedly the eleventh amend
ment was intended to prevent the fed
raj court, in suits prosecuted by citi-
zens Of another State or citizens or
subjects Of foreign state. from in
vation Of it's autonomy. in maintain
ing its own system of self government,
so, long as such system is in harmony
with the constitution of the United
States. To this end, therefore, the
funds of the State, in the treasury, or
held by it officers or agents for use
In the administration Of the govern
mental affairs Of the State are not to
be affected by the process of a federal
court, nor can such court entertain
Jurisdiction Of an action which has
for it's purpose the invasion Of the
rights Of the State to manage and
control its international affairs, or Of
an action which will obstruct the
State authority or impair the State
instrumentalities in the discharge Of
legitimate functions in the mainten-
ance Of the States integrity. To be
| more concise, the constitutional limi-
tation is to the effect that the courts
OF the United States cannot entertain
jurisdiction in an action at the I'M
! stance OF citizen who seeks to re.
cover as against the State the prop
erty belonging to the State, or the
purpose Of which is, and the result OF
which would be, to disturb the legal
and orderly administration of the
States internal governmental affairs
by its duly appointed officers and
agents."
AS to whether or not the dispensary
commission Is court Is briefly con-
sidered. Judge Boyd citing the con-
stitution Of the State Of South Caroli-
ma providing for the establishment Of
the different courts Of the State, the
court holding that while it is true that
the commissioners were empowered
to investigate the transactions con-
nected with the management and con-
L <,r@1
abolishment. they were not en-
powered to determine any issue of
fact, enter any Judgment or con-
clude any part that might be inves-
tigated as to any right or interest in
volved.
State Supreme Court Opinion.