Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-02-03

isaToH al The tcI,us sorcrcign ana Independent.
hat the states were screreign aud ipdeuerd
fnt !eiote the sJrpticp al the federal cou,ii.
in,i"n. no one will pretend to deus that in
entering i"io thai compact, they yielded only
such rot,inn OF their sovereignty as they haze
expressly surrendered, or by necessary i'm.
i'si' a'"'". the constitution If The u States
Itself declares. The consequence necessarily
fellows that Az Ia those powers which still
remain IL the sta.e., tkey are sorereign aud in.
desRd'nt. o, IN otrcr wc,dS they are exempt
;io'" tie JU4sdiciion Of the (ederai courts or OF
Way cGg'fs apon earth.
hut, aS Questions NAV sometimes occnr as TO
tie precise Boundaries OF federal and state
authority aud collision of opinion NAV take
place between The two governments il may
Ice asked, how shall snch questions be deci.
utus Must each government TO enforce its
oyn opitIioh exert its own DOwer, in tue case
OF two states wholly separated from. aud ia.
dependent OF esci, oihers Or shall one of
them possess the right Of finally deciding the
controversy The General Assembly will
give the onl. answer which the constitution
anJ history OF our government will furnish,
Ii Is well known that one of the chief con,
plaibts against the old confederation was, that
X i,aa no power OF acting upon indipiduals
and nuly depended for the execution of i,s
laws. upon acquisitions on the states. These
acquisitions we're obeyed or not, as the states
found II CONVENE hj. and in many instances
were wholly 6isrerardri. To remedy this
evii, the Ne" constitution produced an enIire
u.
aud substituted iur,sdclion ovprthe indiri.
dvaI tttizcus Oh ihe COUNT ytfor the fee Bile aud
iuehcciuai power al ealing uron the state
governments 10 obey, OF execute the laws of
'he u"i'h. VINE" fB's elRcient power was
c;rutcd, The nominal authority which had
beeu before epjoled. was laid aside altogether
and tue federal so,ernment being eDabled, by
IT'S power over individuals, 10 carry It's own
ordinances into ,ift CT, renoumced at once tie
useless pageant Of state snbordipation and
state assistance.
Very little reflection is n~cessaty TO con.
vince any nnbiassed mind, ihai this power
over indisidndls Is amply sniiicien, Tor all the
pnrioseS OF Maintaining the federal authority
i lie case under consideration will afford as
good an eAzmple 10 illustrate This position. a.,
eau be- selected THE state law was in con-
nict with 'aw OF congress, and AN individual
was improperly sentenced TO pay fine for
exercising privilege secuf ed To him by the
latter law, The officer who exesuipd The sem
teDce OF the state court might have been ,,,
Ell or ihdlcted by tie patty aggvieved in The
federal court, and thus ohtsin a compensa-
ton Tor the injury, aud vindication of the
insuiieh authority of the federal government
by This mode ut proceeding, The degrading
necessity IN avoided, OF dragging severely,
state as a delinquent into "a federal cont,
while every end rs obtained which Justice and
federal dignity eau require.
nero Is only one exception II the general
RUE mat stale cannot be patty TO "A sui in
federal CONT. aud that is where the state il
Itself party, ard voluntarily submits lis ,ishls
10 The federal jurisdictions. When This is
done, tile state valves IFS own claims of so.
rere'gnty, and the court 10 which il submits
t'S iie"'s' only acqaiesces in its desire TO as
certain them.
Tie General Assembly do not pretend that
the mode they have just pointed out will
obviate all possible inconveniences which NAV
pe imagined 10 arise trom collisions between
the siaie aud fcdeIal authorities. In all free
governments. where over is spaginsly given
aud cautiously guarded, there must he iuauy
distant evils, tor which the constitution cam
no. provide complete aud ADEQUATE remedy.
loo much soliciiude upon this subject nisl,t
throw tnio the hands az the government an
eXtcut OF power, whipi. would DESTROY the
government itself; and TINS the app chen
Sou OF remote dangers might canse us 10
overlook and negleci those which are inn
mediate aud pressing. This truth is patti
cniat!y striking IN our complex form OF 90
veTnmeni, where every line betrays "a Jealous
sy OF power, where checks abound on every
soc, aud where the great mass of power inhe
rent IN the people is distributed between the
states and the federal government aud a
portion not delegated tn either but reserved
10 the people Themselves. Ii is better TO
ieavS government something short of ideal
perfection thai 10 iacur The risk of piacti
Cal tyranny Should. however, an extreme
case occur, The American statesmen may draw
from onr past history The most ilsttering bopes
mat the wisdom. and modFra,isn and firmnPs,
which have so often saved this Country in the
most trying crisis, will not desert IL, in future
fhculties
1t only remains OIL this part of the subject
10 prove, that the Language of the constitu-
non is IN perfect accordance with these priu.
c,pies As the constitution was originally
adopted, il undoubt div contained grant of
power sufficiently extensive to embrace the
present case, provided The Cohens were ciii-
ztns OF another state Ii thew are citizens of
ViTeInIa. the constitution, before ann amend
ment 10 II was adopted, could not have EN-.
braced this case for the Jurisdiction 10 try
causes betWrfn state and her oDH citizens
was never given 10 the federal conrtS AZ any
ZINE Nv The 2d section of the 81 article 1T
me constitution. The judicial pOwe of the u.
>. ~ made To extend "to controversies be
tween two or more states, between "A state
anu c'iL ms OF another state, &c. Whether
Tue constitution intended by these words only
W ueScIlDe cases in which the states were
p'ainfifts or the principle was introduced
ihfnhsh lhadvcricDcy. il is impossible now
10 determine. Certain ~ is. thar If il intends
Gu 10 render slate syabie, ii was Depart
ure from the theory Of our government, This
cause was. however, soon followed up by A
aeriSiou OF the supreme court sanciioniur The
doctiine that state might be sued in The
FEDERAL court. This decision caused The iIih
amendment TO the constitution, which de-
cifIes HAT the "JrdiciaI power of the u s.
shah bOt he construed 10 extend to any suit
~ law or equity, commenced prosecuted against
one ni The u. =. bv citizens of another state or
ny citizens or subjects of any foreign state"
There can he no 6oubi that this amendment
prohibits III express terms all power 10 sue a
STATE ~ 'he courts Of The u. s. Bui it may
he made question whether il denies 10 those
courts The power OF entertaining \ suit Ivy ap.
peal, or writ of error. where the suit was
or'glnaly brought in a state court by state
rs pidintiD? A Conclusive answer is furnished
ny Tie amendment ijself. If suit is either
= commenced or" prosecuted against state.
~ fiIlS within tn" prohibition of the amend
ment. Although the state was originally plaiu-
tIif III The state court. vet when she had obtain-
ed Judgment. and The defendants PRAYED for
a writ of error from the federal court, they
became the cOmpainaRtS. and the suit is
henc0orward prosecuted by them against The
state. The case therefore falls within tile