facto jurisdiction, although negotations are pending b the United States and a foreign government to determine which of them has the right of sovereignty thereover.17 § 103. Liability of a State to a suit by the United States. A State may be sued by the United States in any proper without consenting to the jurisdiction. Such consent was by the State when it was admitted into the Union, upon an e footing with the other States.2 case, iven ual The § 104. Liability of a State to a suit by another State. Constitution provides that "the judicial power shall extend to Controversies between two or more States, 1 than and between a State, and the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens, or Subjects." The Eleventh Amendment has not taken away the liability of one of the United States to a suit by another such State or a foreign State. Such jurisdiction, how ever, is confined to controversies concerning rights affecting property; not to those merely affecting political rights.2 It includes controversies concerning boundaries between different States, even though the complainant claim no title other that of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the lands in quest ion.3 For, "in this country, where feudal tenures are abolished, cases of escheat the State takes the place of the feudal lord, by virtue of its sovereignty, as the original and ultimate proprietor of all the lands within its jurisdiction."4 If, however, in which prays relief against a threatened invasion of rights purely political in their nature, a threatened injury to property stated "only by way of showing one of the grievances resulting from the threatened destruction of the State, and in aggravation of it, not as a specific ground of relief;" and "this matter 17 Cordova v. Grant, 248 U. S. 413. $103. 1 U. S. v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621, 36 L. ed. 285; Kansas v. U. S., 204 U. S. 331, 51 L. ed. 510. 2 U. S. v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621, 646, 36 L. ed. 285, 293. § 104. 1 Art. III, § 2. 2 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, 8 L. ed. 25; Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50, 18 L. ed. 721; Georgia v. Grant, 6 Wall. 241 a in bill be 18 L. 3 Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657, 9 L. ed. 1233; Missouri v. Iowa, 7 How. 660, 12 L. ed 861; Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 4 7 8, 15 v. West Virginia, 11 Wall, 39, L. ed. 67. 4 Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wa 11. 78, 18 L. ed. 721, 724. 20 50, of property is neither stated as an independent ground, nor is it noticed at all in the prayers for relief:" the bill will be dismissed.5 6 A State may sue another State for an injunction against the diversion of the waters of a stream flowing through both which unreasonably interferes with their use for irrigation, and to enjoin a public nuisance affecting a large number of the complainant's citizens, such as the pollution of the water. A State cannot sue another State or the Government and Health officials of the latter to enjoin their enforcement of unreasonable quarantine regulations which interfere with commerce between the two States. A State cannot obtain an order or judgment compelling a governor of another State to return a fugitive from. labor or justice. A suit cannot be maintained when brought by one State against another to enforce the payment by the latter of its bonds originally held by citizens of the former State, and assigned by them to it solely for the purpose of collection.10 But a State which owns absolutely the bonds of another State, although it has received them as a gift after they have been due, may sue the latter and recover a decree adjudging the amount due and directing the foreclosure and sale of shares of corporate stock owned by the defendant and mortgaged as security for the bonds.11 A State may sue another State, and a municipal cor 5 Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50, 77, 18 L. ed. 721, 725. 6 Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 51 L. ed. 956. 7 Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U. S. 208, 45 L. ed. 497; s. c., 200 U. S. 496, 50 L. ed. 572. 8 Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1, 44 L. ed. 347; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 86, 51 L. ed. 956, 970. 9 Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66, 16 L. ed. 717. 10 New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U. S. 76, 27 L. ed. 656. 11 South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U. S. 286, 48 L. ed. 448. Before the day fixed for the sale, the defendant paid the amount of the plaintiff's claim in full, namely, $27,400, with costs. The Committee of the North Carolina bondholders subsequently offered, to the Governor of South Dakota, other bonds of North Carolina, which with principal and interest aggregated $150,000. Governor Elrod wrote, in answer: "Your kind offer is declined, for the reason that it seems to me to be against public policy and good conscience." On January 8th, 1907, he recommended the passage of an act returning the money received from South Carolina, saying: "Morally, we have no right to one cent of this money, and we ought to be brave enough and true enough to give it back. This money was clearly intended for our university. She the poration of the latter, for an injunction against the excessive and unreasonable discharge of sewage into a river, which poisons the water supply of the inhabitants of the plaintiff and injuriously affects that portion of the bed of the river which lies within plaintiff's territory.12 A State may sue another State, to Prevent the latter from authorizing the diversion of the water of a stream flowing through both States, so as to deprive the plaintiff's inhabitants of the water, to which they were entitled; It is clear to me that our State ought not to become a collecting agency, neither ought it to forget the doctrine of 'comity between States.' The decision in the case of the State of South Dakota v. the State of North Carolina opens up endless opportunities for States to deal in the bonds and other obligations of sister States. It is not possible to exaggerate the scandals, the corruption of Legislatures and State officials, and the possibilities of graft which would follow if States should start to trade on the power which the decision gives them. No State ought to be endowed with the power to speculate upon unenforceable claims of individuals against other States. Under the Federal Constitution individuals cannot sue States on such bonds, so the holder gives or sells them to us, and we can sue the State that issued the bonds. The decision in 13 retired from office last January, in full and tender it back to North Carolina!" Report, p. 171, Mohonk Conference, A. D. 1907. S. S. bill prejudice after a trial of the issues of fact. U. S. bill 13 Kansas v. Colorado, 185 was eventually dismissed, without tiff to institute that the Ar and where the navigability of the stream is not affected, the United States has no right of intervention because of its alleged duty of legislating for the reclamation of arid lands. 14 A State cannot sue another State, to enjoin the enforcement of quarantine regulations, which impose unreasonable restraint upon commerce between ports of the two States.15 A tribe of Indians domiciled within the borders of the United States does not constitute a foreign State within the meaning of the Constitution.16 § 105. Liability of States to suits by private persons. Under the Constitution of the United States as originally adopted, it was provided that the judicial power of the United States should extend to controversies "between a State and Citizens of another State." This was held to subject a State to liability to an action by a citizen of another State.2 The decision was opposed to the opinions of Marshall and others, as expressed in the conventions which ratified the Constitution,3 and was repugnant to the feelings of the people. Consequently, the Eleventh Amendment was adopted. This enacted that "the Judicial Power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit, in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." A State cannot, without its consent, be sued by one of its own citizens, even on a cause of action arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. It has been suggested, but not decided, that, in a case arising under the Fourteenth Amendment, the inhibition of the Eleventh Amendment may not kansas by Colorado, its corporations or citizens, the substantial interests of Kansas are being injured to the extent of destroying the equitable apportionment of benefits between the two States resulting from the flow of the river. Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 117, 118, 51 L. ed. 956, 983. 14 Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 86, 51 L. ed. 956, 970. 15 Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1, 44 L. ed. 347. Supra, § 3. 16 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, 8 L. ed. 25. Fed. Prac. Vol. I-42 $105. 1 Art. III., § 2. The liability of a State to suit by the United States or another State is described, supra, § 3. 2 Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L. ed. 440. 3 See Elliott's Debates. In Hans Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1, Bradley, J., speaking for the court, said that Chisholm v. Georgia was erroneously decided. 4 Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1, 33 L. ed. 842; North Carolina v. Temple, 134 U. S. 22, 33 L. ed. 849. apply. It has been said: "The Constitution, with its amendments, is construed as one instrument, and the Eleventh Amendment cannot be applied to nullify the power conferred on Congress to regulate commerce among the several States. It is not a barrier to judicial investigation to ascertain whether other provisions of the Constitution have been disregarded by the State action.'' 6 A corporation chartered by Congress cannot sue a State." An action at law or a suit in equity or in admiralty, against a municipal corporation, or against a county, or any other political subdivision of a State, 10 is not a suit against a State and a State statute cannot divest a Federal court of jurisdiction over such a suit.11 Where a State statute authorizes suits against the State only in a State court, the District Courts of the United States have no jurisdiction.12 An action against a corporation, such as a railroad company, all the stock of which is owned by a State, is not an action against a State.13 A State agricultural college may be sued for a tort.14 It has been held at circuit, that a crossbill may be filed against 5 Perkins v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 155 Fed. 445, 447; Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 150, 52 L. ed. 714, 725, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 932, 14 Ann. Cas. 764. 6 Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. Mississippi Railroad Commission, C. C. A., 138 Fed. 327, 331; per Shelby, J. See also Southern Ry. Co. v. Greensboro Ice & Coal Co., 134 Fed. 82. 7 Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436, 44 L. ed. 1140. 8 Camden Interstate Ry. Co. v. Catlettsburg, 129 Fed. 421; U. S. v. Port of Portland, 147 Fed. 865. 9 Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U. S. 529, 33 L. ed. 766; Eaton v. Shiawassee County, C. C. A., 218 Fed. 588; Lauderdale County v. Kittel, C. C. A., 229 Fed. 593; United States V. C. A. Riffle Co., 247 Fed. 374. 10 Hopkins v. Clemson Agricul tural College of South Carolina, 221 U. S. 636, 55 L. ed. 890. See supra, $95. 11 Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U S. 529, 33 L. ed. 766. 12 Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436, 44 L. ed. 1140; Smith v. Rackliffe, C. C. A., 87 Fed. 964; Deseret Water, Oil & Irr. Co. v. State of California, C. C. A., 202 Fed. 498. 13 Southern Ry. Co. v. North Carolina R. Co., 81 Fed. 595, 599, 600; Simonton, J.: "When the State entered into this enterprise with private persons, she did not carry into it her functions of sovereignty; but stripped herself of them.'' 14 Hopkins v. Clemson Agricultural College of South Carolina, 221 U. S. 636, 55 L. ed. 890. But a State court has held that an action against a State industrial school in Alabama is an action against the |