Democratic Sentinel, Volume 7, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 23 March 1883 — STATE RIGHTS. [ARTICLE]

STATE RIGHTS.

The supreme court of the United States has hail under consideration three c »ses bearing directly upon the question ojfate rights or Stale sovereignty, and the decisions of the Court, as pronounced by the chief Justice, will not fail to attract wide attention. The case' before the Court are briefly stated as follows: The first ? as a suit brought by citizens of Louisiana against the G v.rnor, Treas ttrer «nd other officials of that State to c tn pel payment of certain btnds. By an act of 1874 certain bonds of the State «e e consolidated, to run for forty 3 ears a* 7 per cent, interest, and a tax was ord-er-d to be levied for their payment, u >sequentJy, in 1879, the uew constitution < f Louisiana scaled down toe interesl on these bonds to 2 per cent., and gave the bondholders under the act of ,674 the privilege of taking new 4 per cent bonds at the rale of seveuty-five cents of the latter tor $1 of tne former. The holders of the consolidated bonds refused to accept, and brought this suit in the United States Courts to have that pait of the Louisiana Constitution which r, )a ©' to the bonds declared in conflict with the Federal Constitution as impairing the obligation ot contracts, and to compel the State officials to take the nec :-sary steps to pay principal and interest of the debt. *******

The second case related to the sums consolidated bonds of Louisiana, and arose out ot the legislation es New Hampshire to enforce payment of debts uue citizens from other Slates. In 1879 New Hampshire passed a law providing that any citizen of tne State holding bonds or other obligations of another State might assign them to the State of Sew Hampshire and have that Slate bring suit in its own name against the delinquent for the recovery of the debt. Under this act six consolidated bond) ot the State of Louisiana were assigned to the State of New Ham psltire by one of its citizens, and New Hampshire filed in the United states Courts a bill in equity against the State of Louisiana. The object of this New Hampshire act was to get around the Eleventh Amendment to the Federal Constitution, which provides that “the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend t > any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another Slate or by citizens aud subjects ot any foreign state.’’ Previous to lhe adoption of this amendment a citizen of oue could sue another State in the Courts ot lhe United States.

The third case grew out of the recent Readjuster laws ot Virginia. In 1871 the Legislature of Virginia passed an act funding the public debt, by which twothirds of lhe amount due on the old bond, might be funded in new bonds with inteiest coupons attached, which couj o.is were made receivble ’or all taxes and demands due the Bta’e. Under this .ci mmy bonds were issued with coun<ms which expressed on their faces that im-y were receivable for taxes. The valiui’y of this act, was sustained by the Virginia Court of Appeals. But in January. 1882, the Readjustee Legislature passed an act wuich provided among ii.er Uiings, that coupons should Jnot be rec- ived t->r taxes uulu t.mii genuineness ti.-ni oe< n e-übl shed bv an appropriate judicial- i-ioceeding, the nature ot which he ict set fnth. This law, it is contene l, - was in violation of the contract ;n.utc with the creditors of Virginia tn 17 Ou the 20th of March, 1882, Andrew Antoni ottered one ot the coupons for t xes, which was refused, touit was brought in the Virginia Court of Appeals to enforce by mandamus its acceptance by the Tux Collector, but the Court ueiag equally decided iu opinion the writ of manuamus was refused, and the c ise was sent to the Supreme Oourt o. the U iiled 8 aies tor review. In each of the cases stated the purpose was iu bringing them before the Supreme Judicial tribunal of the Republic to obtain redress for State delinquencies by Federal interferences to strike down the la t rcma ning sateguard of States and subject them in all regards to Federal authority, as much so as Oouuties are subservient to the control of State authority. Chief Justice Waite, in delivering the o] i lion of the Oourt, was careful to set forth lhe Constitutional doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of the Slates within their sphere, and therefore beyond Federal jurisdiction. He shows that the purpose of the Eleventh Amendment was to eliminate from the Constitution, as originally adopted , jurisdiction by the Federal Judiciary over lhe controversies between a State and citizens of another State. In the case of Louisiana, where citizens have brought suit against the officers of lhe State, the Chief Justice said that to grant the relief asked would be to require the officers ot Louisiana to act contrary to supreme power of the State whose servants they are. He lays it down as the law. that the officers owe duty to the State alone, and can act only as the State allows them to act; and that the Court, to grant the remedy required, would have to assume all the executive aufhoritj of the State, supervise all officials charged’ with the levy, collection and disbursement of taxes, aud that, t<>o, in a proceeding in which the State, as a state, was not and vould not be “ party; and concludes that the politica 1 power of the State can not be ousted of its jurisdiction, and the Federal Judiciary set in its place. In the case where New Hampshire sought in a roundabout way to compel Louisiana to surrender her sovereignty, Chief Justice vVaite uses lan. guage indicative of a purpose on his par to correct fanatical theory that thi Federal Government can, through its judiciary or otherwise, rob the States of their Constitutional rights. Referring to the Eleventh Amendment, the Chief Justic e said:

The effect <>f the amendment was simp’ ly to revoke the new right that had been given and leave the limitations to stand as they were. The evident purpose of the amendment was to prohibit all suiis agai nst a State by or for citizens of other States or alien*, without the consent of 1 (he State to be sued; and in our opinion one Stale can not create a controversy with another State within the meaning of that term as used in the judicial clauses of the Constitution by assuming ths prosecution of debts owing bv the other State to its citizens. Such being the case we are satisfied that we are prohibited bthby th letter and spirit ot the Coo Stiturion from entertaining these suits, and the bill in each of them is consequently tlistnisse t. In the Virginia case the Chief-Justice held - that by “changing the manner of

paying the tax and proving the validity of coupons, did tot impair tne obligations of the contract, and hence, the 1 Court would not interfere. These eases indicate to what an alarming extent the mmd baa become ’nipressed with the belief that States bad no Const! tutlonal rights which the Federal Government was bound to respect, and that it was only necessary to appeal to the supreme power to reduce sovereign States

to Federal vassalage. From the first, and all the time, the Democratic Darty, in matters pertaining to the Constitution* al or reserved riehts of States, has been outspoken, and the decision of the Supreme C’nprt of the United States, in the cases referred to, clearly vindicate the wis lorn ot democratic princi plea and the patriotic devotion of the pasty to the Constitutional rights ot the States and the people.

A handsome $9.00 Album to be given away at M. O. Cissel’s. Call and learn particulars.