CASES ADJUDGED

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,

AT

OCTOBER TERM, 1889.

HANS v. LOUISIANA.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.

No. 4. Argued and submitted January 22, 1890. - Decided March 3, 1890.

A State cannot, without its consent, be sued in a Circuit Court of the United States by one of its own citizens, upon a suggestion that the case is one that arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, questioned.

While a State cannot be compelled by suit to perform its contracts, any attempt on its part to violate property or rights acquired under its contracts may be judicially resisted; and any law impairing the obligation of contracts under which such property or rights are held is void, and powerless to affect their enjoyment.

THIS was an action brought in the Circuit Court of the United States, in December, 1884, against the State of Louisiana by Hans, a citizen of that State, to recover the amount of certain coupons annexed to bonds of the State, issued under the provisions of an act of the legislature approved January 24, 1874. The bonds were known and designated as the "consolidated bonds of the State of Louisiana," and the coupons sued on are for interest which accrued January 1, 1880. The grounds of the action were stated in the petition as follows: "Your petitioner avers that by the issue of said bonds and

VOL. CXXXIV-1

Statement of the Case.

coupons said State contracted with and agreed to pay the bearer thereof the principal sum of said bonds forty years from the date thereof, to wit, the first day of January, 1874, and to pay the interest thereon represented by coupons as aforesaid, including the coupons held by your petitioner, semi-annually upon the maturity of said coupons; and said legislature, by an act approved January 24, 1874, proposed an amendment to the constitution of said State, which was afterwards duly adopted, and is as follows, to wit:

"No. 1. The issue of consolidated bonds, authorized by the general assembly of the State at its regular session in the year 1874, is hereby declared to create a valid contract between the State and each and every holder of said bonds, which the State shall by no means and in nowise impair. The said bonds. shall be a valid obligation of the State in favor of any holder thereof, and no court shall enjoin the payment of the principal or interest thereof or the levy and collection of the tax therefor. To secure such levy, collection and payment the judicial power shall be exercised when necessary. The tax required. for the payment of the principal and interest of said bonds shall be assessed and collected each and every year until said bonds shall be paid, principal and interest, and the proceeds shall be paid by the treasurer of the State to the holders of said bonds as the principal and interest shall fall due, and no further legislation or appropriation shall be requisite for the said assessment and collection and for such payment from the treasury.'

"And petitioner further avers that, notwithstanding said solemn compact with the holders of said bonds, said State hath refused and still refuses to pay said coupons held by petitioner, and by its constitution, adopted in 1879, ordained as follows:

"That the coupon of said consolidated bonds falling due the first of January, 1880, be, and the same is hereby, remitted, and any interest taxes collected to meet said coupons are hereby transferred to defray the expenses of the state government; and by article 257 of said constitution also prescribed that the constitution of this state, adopted in eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, and all amendments thereto, is declared

Statement of the Case.

to be superseded by this constitution;' and said State thereby undertook to repudiate her contract obligations aforesaid and to prohibit her officers and agents executing the same, and said State claims that, by said provisions of said constitution, she is relieved from the obligations of her aforesaid contract and from the payment of said coupons held by petitioner, and so refuses payment thereof and had prohibited her officers and agents making such payment.

"Petitioner also avers that taxes for the payment of the interest upon said bonds, due January 1, 1880, were levied, assessed and collected, but said State unlawfully and wrongfully diverted the money so collected, and appropriated the same to payment of the general expenses of the State, and has made no other provision for the payment of said interest.

"Petitioner also avers that said provisions of said constitution are in contravention of said contract, and their adoption was an active violation thereof, and that said State thereby sought to impair the validity thereof with your petitioner in violation of article 1, section 10, of the Constitution of the United States, and the effect so given to said state constitution does impair said contract.

"Wherefore petitioner prays that the State of Louisiana be cited to answer this demand, and that after due proceedings she be condemned to pay your petitioner said sum of ($87,500) eighty-seven thousand five hundred dollars, with legal interest from January 1, 1880, until paid, and all costs of suit; and petitioner prays for general relief."

A citation being issued, directed to the State, and served upon the governor thereof, the attorney general of the State filed an exception, of which the following is a copy, to wit:

"Now comes defendant, by the attorney general, and excepts to plaintiff's suit on the ground that this court is without jurisdiction ratione persona. Plaintiff cannot sue the state without its permission; the constitution and laws do not give this honorable court jurisdiction of a suit against the state, and its jurisdiction is respectfully declined.

"Wherefore respondent prays to be hence dismissed, with costs and for general relief.”

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

By the judgment of the court this exception was sustained, and the suit was dismissed. See Hans v. Louisiana, 24 Fed. Rep. 55. To this judgment the present writ of error was brought.

Mr. J. D. Rouse, (Mr. William Grant was also on the brief,) for plaintiff in error.

I. The sole question arising in this case, and now here presented for the first time, is: "Does the judicial power of the United States extend to a case arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States and originally brought against a State by one of its own citizens?"

The judicial power of the United States is established by the Constitution, and its extent is defined by section 2 of article 3, which is as follows:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States and treaties made or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens of different States; between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States, and between a State or the citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

The provision is mandatory, and has always been held to include all that the fullest scope given to the language requires. Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264; Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257; Railroad Co. v. Mississippi, 102 U. S. 135; Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247; 3 Webster's Works, 334, 482.

II. But it is contended by the defendant that because of its sovereignty it is excepted from the operation of this general grant of judicial power. There is no warrant for the proposition either in the history of the constitution or in its judicial interpretation.