Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-04-10


tenth arsieie of the same treaty, and deposi,s
the proceeds In ,he public chest. Ii will be |
agreed on all hands, that the frat is a paipa. |
bic violation Ut the federal constitution and the |
two others az psipabe violations of the solemn
supnia,ions of treaty and that, therefore, |
The hrst presents a question arising under the !
consiIi u'ion. ai,d the Others one arising under
treaty ;yet, VIII ANY man contend that the
ctnZ.n ~ another Stait, IN the first case, O r
the subject 1f the tpreign state, IN the others
could bring the oicudiug state beinre the
federal court, Tor the purpose OF redtessiay
their several wrorgsi Ii will no, be pre,eud-
ed; anU Why not Tor the reason which have
gwen, that one of the parties in the cases
srppossd, brirg as;ate. aud the amendment
referred to- having declared, that "A state
should not he amenable 10 the suit of a citi-
ecu OF another state, or The subject Of u tor
e,gu state, although ths questions have arisen,
tho CASES have moi that is, the court cannot
take Judicial cogniEaDce of the question, be-
cause II csnnot bring one Of The pa, ties inter.
estsd In Iitisating it before them. Let us row
suppose, that state should collect u tonnage
duty fiomooe of its own citizens could that
citzen bring his own state, before federal
court? think not 1 am aware, thar the
words of the llth ameGdmant apply to the
case OF ci;izea OF another state, or the cit.
iIen or subject OF foreign state but the
reason Is that u was only 10 them, that the
privilege of being parties in "A controversy
WIN d state. had been extended In the text
OF the coastituton. Ii WIS only from them,
| therefore, that IL was necessary to take away
'hat privilege but, when syom those TO whom
| privilege had been given. that privilege had
been taken away. they surely then occupy
The same ground, with tbosa 10 whom IL had
never seen given. When speak here of the
right OF those perSoas uDder, the constitution
! OF suing state, 1 speak OF TIE Interpretation
oil THIS court, particularly ia the case OF CHS
holm eX'rs Va. Georgia, in which thsscourt
dec'ueu. that state might be made n party
Defendant l. wa, that decision which pro,
dnced tue llih anne sdmeDi. 1t am rig lat IN the
I iosa, that since that amepdment, no matter
! what the character of the question, this court
could not take jurisdiction IN favor OF the
citizen OF another state, or subject of a foreign
| state against stats as defsndant.i il ia equally
| true, that without ;ho aid of that anne udne MT
| 1t never could taka jurisdiction In favor of a
citizen against his own stats, bscanse that is
not one of the cases, In which the fede al in.
| dieIai power extends 10 states, and because
IN ttiis case, as IN the others, althou gin ones.
ton has arisen nnder. the constitution, Sea-
case has not arisen, iDasmnch ua you cannot
Dfius one OF tho parties before YOU That
| me constitution never contemplated giving
llursdiction TO the federal courts fu cases be.
tween state aud its own citizens wit think
appear maDifestly, from the only reason, as.
| sighed TOT giving IL in tavor OF the citizens of
| other states Or foreign citizens that reason
was an Insufficient one, even for the pnrpose
i"' which 1t was assigned il being tina. as
against foreigners and the citizens OF other
states, state courts might not ht impartial
where their states were parties but such a.
its,t never could apply as between state
ann Its own citizens. whom they were under
every moral aud political obligation TO pro-
tsct, and towards whom therefore there
eon.u 0e 10 apprehension of a want of impair.
TALLY.
Upon a fall view of this aspect of the sub.
{lect, the fair Co siructiou of the constitntion
] ihiuk, will be found 10 be this-that in
carving ont the genaral mass oil jurisdiction
Il had reference only 10 the natural aud
habiiusi parties TO controversies. who are
either natural pets0us OF corporatious
| moi IN
IN relation TO these, thoy could not have bee
made parties at all, bur by express provision,
anu !hat therefore The extent to which they
can be so made, is limited by the extern OF
that provision. Ii will be cOoceded that the
u. States cannot be sued, and why2 Because
II is Incompatible with lis sovereignty. The
states oatore the adoption of the federal cou-
| siituttoD were alsD sovereign aod the sams
principle applies, unless il cau be shewn thai
they have surrendered ihis attribute OF sove.
reisBty; Which have endeavoured 10 shew.
they have not done.
| Upon my constructions there ia cou,istenrv
tnroughoui the constitution. Accoiaiuy 10 il
state Cru never be subjected, at the suit OF
any individual, TO any Judicial tribunal with,
ou' lis owv consent; for II eau never be made
party dctendant in any case or By any parry,
except Ia The cases between il aud euutheI
stale or foreign state. If il be a party plain
I'm, have already ehdeavored TO prove that
original Jurisdiction. aud that therefore as
belwsen ii state aDdany individual thai Stale
never could be placed IN the attitude of a
defendant. Ihls idea is further sustained BY
reference TO the history Of The country.
| From that we learn, that the great and radical
defect in The first cODtederacy was, thar its
| powers operated upon political societies or
states, nst upon individuals. The character
'snc difference between that and the present
! government Is, that the latter operatea npnn
| lhe citizens take, for example, The power of
taXntioi, which addresses itself Directly IN
me reorIe OF the United States, in the shape
Al a dnsnn and
| sition nPon the states, for their resoec,iye
quotas.
lthas been said. that If This doctrin, pre.
v.hIhe federal government will be Frustrated
AT toe feet of he states, and that fse varioos
limitations and prohibitions imposed upon
| the states by ths constitution, will bs a
| uead letter, upon The face of tbat iustru-
, uen.' '1f NE want OF some kower TO entorcs
| 'hsn' Ley ~ be remembered thai the seq.
ersi state Legislatures and judiclaties, are all
| bonnd toy the solemn oblis ion OF An oa,h IN
| support The federal constitution that 10 snn.
! puse STATE legislature capable of wiIfnIly e-
E'sIdiing III Vioiat ion Of that constitution ia
10 suppose that Il Is so lost TO the moral sense
| AS to be Guilty at perjury a supposition which
! iha7k God the charac ter Of your people for.
oius uS 10 mske, nor can IL be realized, until
we snail nave reached Il maturity of corrtoD.
non, from which trnst we are aeparated Nv
long tract offutnre lime. But IL The le,isIs
tnrrs conld he supposed To be so blind TO the
sacred distateS Of conscience and of duty az
to pass snsh a law, we have smother sn TssJ
~ the Character of the state judiciaries Re-
fore effect conid be given 20 il, IL must he
supposed that tho sauctity of the IndIcisl
eiiniDe was also polluted. To him, who can
Tor moment entertain this unjust and ipin-
Iious apprehension, have netting 10 saw. In,
TO nsk him to look at tho talents, The viftues,
aud integrity, which adoiu and illustrate the
beaches OF our slate courts; and. sir, L will
add, that according 10 the doctrine maintain.
~ py ms court, M the case of Hunter &,
nafin, Tin lat Wheaton,) the Judgments of
tbe stste courts, iU questions arising under
me constitution, between iHdividnaI,, would
D." Wysct 10 HE appel late Jurisdiction of
THIS court" But take leave 10 remind 0sn.
".