provision that what the State officers now propose to do should never be done; that those who took the bonds might rely upon a fixed annual levy to meet the principal and interest; that all money thereby raised should be applied exclusively to that purpose; and that not only the officers of the State should assess, collect, and pay as it stipulated, but that the power of the judiciary should be exercised, whenever necessary, to enforce the obligation of the contract. These laws, in their substantial provisions, are as binding on the State, and are as much a part of the contract, as if those provisions had been therein expressly set forth. Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. 311; McCracken v. Hayward, 2 id. 608; Planters' Bank v. Sharp, 6 id. 301; Walker v. Whitehead, 16 Wall. 314; Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U. S. 595; Louisiana v. New Orleans, 102 id. 203.

The State has no more right by law to impair the obligation of its contracts than it has, by law, to impair the obligation of contracts between individuals. In State of New Jersey v. Wilson, the language of the court, speaking by Chief Justice Marshall, is: "In the case of Fletcher v. Peck it was decided in this court, on solemn argument and with much deliberation, that this provision of the Constitution [the contract clause] extends to contracts to which a State is a party, as well as to contracts between individuals." 7 Cranch, 164, 166. It is the settled doctrine of this court that contracts with States are as fully protected by the Constitution against impairment by State legislation as contracts between individuals. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1; Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514; Woodruff v. Trapnall, 10 How. 190; Wolff v. New Orleans, 103 U. S. 358.

3. If the Debt Ordinance of Louisiana is in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and, therefore, a nullity as against the holders of consolidated bonds, if the latter are entitled by the terms of their contract to be paid out of the moneys collected for their benefit and to have further collections made, is there any mode, known to the law, by which their rights can be protected? My brethren of the majority answer this question in the negative when they adjudge that no relief whatever can be given in either of these suits. One is a suit in equity commenced in the Circuit Court of the

United States by holders of consolidated bonds to prevent, by injunction, officers of the State from using the proceeds of taxes already raised under the statute and Constitution of 1874, for any purpose other than that for which they were collected. and paid to the State treasurer. In the other suit, the plaintiffs, holders of consolidated bonds, and citizens of New York, ask a mandamus against the State officers compelling the application of the moneys so collected to the payment of their coupons, and also the collection of taxes to meet future interest as it becomes due.

Some comment is made upon the extended nature of the relief asked by plaintiffs. It is sufficient to remark that the court is never bound to give relief to the full extent demanded; and all relief is not to be denied because more is asked than the court will grant under any circumstances, or in the particular case. And there is no ground, I submit, for the suggestion that granting relief would require the administration, by the court, of the general finances of the State. What should be done, if properly it may be, is, by necessary orders, to prevent the officers of the State from depriving creditors of moneys which by express contract have been set apart and appropriated exclusively to the payment of their claims. There is no obstacle to the payment out of that fund, except the prohibition in the void Debt Ordinance of 1879. It is distinctly admitted to be easily ascertainable from the accounts how much of the money in the treasury is applicable to this class of debts. Indeed, it appears from the opinion in Newman v. Burke, hereafter referred to, that the treasurer and fiscal agent of Louisiana heid within their control, when these suits were commenced, all the moneys raised under the statute and Constitution of 1874 to meet the interest falling due Jan. 1, 1880. They have, in their hands, more than enough to pay the coupons of Jan. 1, 1880, held by the parties now before the court. Further, a fact most significant in view of the suggestion that these moneys are mingled with other moneys in the State treasury, the interest fund created to pay coupons maturing Jan. 1, 1880, were, by an act of the General Assembly of Louisiana, approved Jan. 4, 1882, directed to be invested in United States bonds. Acts La. 1881, p. 50. And it is not pre

tended that payment from that fund will produce the slightest confusion in the treasurer's accounts, or involve the use of ́moneys raised for other and distinct purposes. If any confusion ensues from such an application of these moneys, it would be only of that kind which arises when the law prevents a repudiating debtor from misappropriating funds, in his hands, that have been dedicated to a specific purpose.

It is apparently urged, as an obstacle in the way of relief, that plaintiffs do not seek to have the proceeds of these taxes applied specially to the payment of their claims, but ask such orders as will enable all holders of consolidated bonds to participate in the distribution of the moneys raised under the statute and Constitution of 1874. Had the suit for a mandamus sought the application of the moneys solely to the payment of coupons held by the plaintiffs, it might, perhaps, have been urged as ground for its refusal, that each bondholder had an interest in the fund so created. State, ex rel. Boyer, v. State Treasurer, 32 La. Ann. 177. If the relief asked cannot be given for the benefit of all holders of consolidated bonds, there would seem to be no difficulty in restricting payments to such as are actually before the court in person or by representation. It is, however, proper to say that, notwithstanding the criticisms made by the court upon the nature and extent of the relief asked, I do not feel authorized to infer from its opinion that relief would be given to the parties before it, had they asked payment only of their coupons. The opinion seems to proceed upon the broad ground that, as Louisiana is not directly suable in its corporate capacity, the courts of the Union cannot reach its agents employed, under its orders, in the work of destroying the contract rights of the plaintiffs.

4. Are these suits forbidden by the Eleventh Amendment of the Federal Constitution, which declares 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? I understand the court, in effect, if not in terms, to hold that they cannot be maintained without violating that amendment.

The first authority cited in support of that view is Reg. v. Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, Law Rep. 7 Q. B. 387.

It appears that by an act of Parliament a round sum was appropriated to the Crown to be used in paying costs incurred in prosecutions at assizes and quarter sessions in England, formerly paid out of county rates. Bills of costs having been passed by local officers, certain items were disallowed and others reduced by the Lords of the Treasury. Subsequently a rule went against the latter to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue compelling them to pay these bills out of the funds appropriated to the Crown for such purposes. The judges, although of opinion that the defendants should be governed by the taxation of the local officers, declined to grant the writ. Cockburn, C. J., said: "The question comes to be, whether the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, when this money gets into their hands, are bound to apply it as servants of the Crown, or as the servants of Parliament who vote the money." Blackburn, J., said: "The question remains, whether there is any statutable obligation cast upon the Lords of the Treasury to do what we are asked to compel them to do by mandamus, namely, to issue a minute to pay that money; because it seems to me clear that we have a right to grant a mandamus if there is such a statutory obligation, particularly when the application is made on behalf of persons who have a direct interest in the matter." Similar declarations were made by the other judges. They all concurred in denying the writ upon the ground that the money was voted, not to named officers to be by them applied to a designated purpose, but as "a supply to the Crown;" that the officers who distributed it for the purposes named acted as servants of the Crown, not as servants of Parliament; that a suit against those officers was, therefore, one against the sovereign, whom, said Chief Justice Cockburn, the Court of Queen's Bench had no power, even in appearance, to command.

It seems to me that case furnishes no support for the suggestion that these are suits against the State, simply because they are brought against its officers. It does not conflict with the proposition that the State treasurer can be compelled to apply the proceeds of these taxes as stipulated in the statute and Constitution of 1874, which were his sole authority to receive them. Here there is a statutable obligation upon him to

pay the coupons as they matured. And to that is added the obligation imposed by that Constitution, which, in terms, declares that the proceeds of taxes collected under the act of that year "shall be paid by the treasurer of the State to the holders of said bonds, as the principal and interest of the same shall fall due," without further legislative authority. These obligations remain upon that officer, unless it be that the Debt Ordinance, although unconstitutional and void, has discharged them. Had Parliament, instead of the act involved in the case cited, passed one directly imposing upon the defendants the duty of paying out of moneys appropriated for that purpose a certain class of claims, it is manifest that the Court of Queen's Bench would have compelled them, by mandamus or other process, to perform that duty. In the case supposed there would have been a statutable obligation which the court would not have permitted the defendants to evade on the pretext that they were officers of the Crown.

This distinction is well illustrated in Grenville-Murray v. Earl of Clarendon, Law Rep. 9 Eq. 11. There the plaintiff sought a decree for the value of diplomatic services alleged to have been rendered by him. He claimed that he was entitled to be paid out of certain money voted by Parliament to the Foreign Office. Lord Romilly, M. R., said: "It [the money so voted] is not paid in trust for any particular person. The case that was cited was to this effect: that if Parliament votes a sum of £1,000 to John Smith, and the treasury devote in their books the payment of that sum to other purposes, then a mandamus will lie to the treasury in order to pay that £1,000 to John Smith. But there is nothing of the sort here. Parlia ment has merely voted certain sums to her Majesty, and of these sums £600,000 are to be applied to the Foreign Office. The distribution of that amount is left to the officers of the Foreign Office to apply in such a manner as is most subservient to her Majesty's service and to the due support of the Foreign Office, and there is nothing whatever to connect the plaintiff with a penny of this money in any aspect. It is impossible for me, therefore, in that state of things, to say that there is any trust for him."

I refer also to Rex v. Lords Commissioners of the Treas