New Britain herald., 1928-04-18
THE SUIT AGAINST NORTH CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA
 It cannot be said that the lawsuit,
 ostensibly begun by the state oi
 Connecticut against the sovereign
 commonwealth of North Carolina.
 for payment of s2So, $50 in bonds dat
 ing from the reconstruction or car
 petbag period following the Civil
 War was accompanied with a desire
 to have the public know all about
 the why's and wherefores.
 ''How Connecticut chanced to be
 8 buyer tof the bonds) is beyond us, l though an examination of records
 might show it," remarked a Hart
 ford contemporary tho other day. How the state came into posses.
 sion of the bonds has since becom..
 known. however. from no less an authority than Jackson Palmer
 lawyer. who seems to have been delegated by the attorney general of Connecticut to appear for the state in the Supreme Court of the United States in connection with the suit.
 How Connecticut got possession of the bonds bears out the contention of North Carolina. The attorney gen eral of the Tar Heel state stated he believes and SC ayers" that the bonds were not owned by Connecti- cut until recently. when they were made gift to charitable institu. ton of the state.
 So much for North Carolina. After the Supreme Court had denied Con- nectcut the right to sue for the bonds before it on the ground that the complaint failed to show how Connecticut got into possession Of the bonds, MT. Palmer admitted that the bonds were conveyed to the state by Daniel E. Griswold with the pro- vision that the proceeds be used for charitable purposes.
 This Is clear-cut case of a private owner Of carpetbag bonds, finding himself unable to collect-as thou sands of other investors have suffer- ed-giving the bonds to the state with the apparent agreement that if the state can collect the money it can have the proceeds.
 Hundreds Of thousands of dollars of such bonds have been repudiated by southern so-called carpetbag ad- set up during the re- construction period. It is not pleas ing retrospect, either from the southern or the northern standpoint. A sovereign state cannot be sued by an individual without it's consent. The holders of the bonds have been powerless to collect. Here is a case where Connecticut Yankee gives | the old bonds to his state and the at- 1 torney general and the state board of control asked the Supreme Court Tor the right to sue the other com- nonwealth, which the Constitution of course permits.
 The legal point involved, whether i state coming into possession Of re- oudiated bonds as a gift, can sue for he principal and interest is one that f allowed no doubt would spell a 1eavy outlay for the southern states 'ho repudiated bonds. If the Su- 'reme Court allowed the suit what would prevent scores Of other private investors from giving their bonds to tate governments and letting them collect? And if such gifts were held |, 'alid. what legal opposition would here be to the sale to states of pri- ate holdings for a small sum. thus opening the way for the state pur- 'i1asers to realize the full amounts suits in the Supreme Court? |
 No wonder the Supreme Court ie its step. This suit by Con. lectlcut, if allowed to be heard bv he Supreme Court, is no small hing. If allowed and ultimately won | would mean that millions of dol ars i'll old bonds could be pried oose from the southern states.