A provision for the initiative and referen dum in a state constitution does not violate this guarantee of the federal constitution; Oregon v. Pacific States Tel. & Tel. Co., 53 Or. 162, 99 Pac. 427; nor does a recall pro vision in a city charter vesting the powers of government in the people and constituting all inhabitants of the city a body politic; Bon ner v. Belsterling, 104 Tex. 432, 138 S. W. 571; nor a state law authorizing cities to adopt the commission form of government including the initiative, referendum and re call, the constitutional guarantee applying only to the government of the state, and not of its local subdivisions; People v. Edmonds, 252 Ill. 108, 96 N. E. 914.
Suits by or against ,a State. A suit by 'the state is usually entitled in the name of the state, or commonwealth, or people, as pre scribed by law or custom in the particular state. The courts of the state and of the United States are open to the state both in its sovereign capacity and by virtue of its cor porate rights; State v. Ohio Oil Co., 150 Ind. 21, 49 N. E. 809, 47 L. R. A. 627. When a state becomes a suitor in the courts of a for eign state, it is treated as a foreign private corporation ; Western Lunatic Asylum v. Mill, er, 29 W. Va. 326, 1 S. E. 740, 6 Am. St. Rep. 644; and where a foreign state had recovered a judgment for a penalty in its own courts, it could sue in this country in a state court in its own name; Healy v. Root, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 389. Any inherent power of the governor at common law to sue in the name of the state is superseded by a state constitution defining executive powers and including such authori ty; Henry v. State, 87 Miss. 1, 39 South. 856. In the absence of a contrary provision by its law, a state may prosecute suits in any court in which other parties institute suits of like character; Commonwealth v. Ford, 29 Grat. (Va.) 683. In Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1, 19, 20 Sup. Ct. 251, 44 L. Ed. 347, a state was spoken of as pare= patrice of all her citizens in respect of bringing suit against Texas for interdicting interstate commerce by unreasonable quarantine restrictions. As quasi-sovereign, the state has a standing in the supreme court to protect its public waters, atmosphere and forests, irrespective of pri vate owners; Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U. S. 349, 28 Sup. Ct. 529, 52 L. Ed. 828, 14 Ann. gas. 560; Kansas v. Colo rado, 206 U. S. 46, 27 Sup. Ct. 655, 51 L. Ed. 956; Georgia v. Copper Co., 206 U. S. 230, 27 Sup. Ct. 618,'51 L. Ed. 1038, 11 Ann. Cas. 488.
That a state, and not the United States, takes by escheat, see ESCHEAT.
When a state brings a suit against citizens, she thereby voluntarily accepts all the condi tions which affect ordinary suitors, except that no affirmative judgment, as for the pay ment of costs, can be rendered against her ; and if the cause is removed to a federal court it will proceed in the same manner as a suit between individuals ; Abeel v. Culberson, 56 Fed. So where the state has brought a suit in equity and the cause has been remov ed to a federal court, the defendant may there file a cross bill against the state; Port Royal & A. R. Co. v. South Carolina, 60 Fed. 552 ; but if the cross bill seeks any affirmative relief against the state, it cannot be filed, un der a constitutional provision that the state shall not be made a defendant in any court of law or. equity ; Holmes v. State, 100 Ala. 80, 14 South. 864; nor can a cross demand be maintained against a state; State v. Gaines, 46 La. Ann. 431, 15 South. 174.
A state, being a sovereign, is subject to the Same law of immunity from suit as that which applies to sovereigns generally, and as to this, see SOVEREIGN. As such it can be sued only by its own consent ; Com. v. Wel ler, 82 Va. 721, 1 S. E. 102 ; Hans v. Louisi ana, 134 U. S. 1, 10 Sup. Ct. 504, 33. L. Ed. 842. But under the constitution of the Unit ed States, the supreme court has original ju risdiction of suits by one state against an other, and this jurisdiction has been fre quently exercised, particularly in cases in volving boundary disputes between the states.
Under the 11th amendment of the United States constitution, it was provided that "the judicial power of the United States shall not 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 for eign state." The proposal and adoption of this amendment followed almost immediately the decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dail. (U. 'S.) 419, 1 L. Ed. 440, that a state was liable to be sued in the supreme court by a citizen of another state. In that case, as ap pears by a note (2 Dall. 480, 1 L. Ed. 466), judgment in default of appearance was ren dered for the plaintiff and a writ of enquiry awarded, but it was not sued out and execut ed, as that cause and all others against states "were swept at once from the records of the court, by the amendment to the federal con stitution agreeably to the unanimous determi nation of the judges, in Hollingsworth v. Virginia," 3 Dail. (U. S.) 378, 1 L. Ed. 644.