Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-07-13
RICHMOND, july IS, 1891.
FOR THE ENQUIRER.
EXAMINATIONS Of he Opinion Of the Supreme
Court, an Ike case Of CouENs rs. THE STATE
or NIRGINIA.
FOR TIDE ENQUIRER,

q.
Before finally dismiss the subject of .he
stability ofstates, justice requires that should
notice those arguments oftlie supreme court,
which have moi yet been answered. shall eu-
deaVour to be as brief as possible.
iae court, feeling the full force of the 18th
amendment, have assailed il with oil the OBJ
Jections which ingenuity can suggest or ina
Slnatlon conceive. Every member of that a.
mcndmcnt is made the subject of criticism ::
and the court resort to the most attenuated
distinction of philology and law, TO prove that
the amendment means one thing and speaks
another. They usher in their disquisition, in
Their usual mode, by telling us what were the
views OF the people of the United States, i'm a.
doptng the amendment in order to repel the
idea that state jealousy had any share in its
formation. Iconfess that after the example
we have had of the historical accuracy of the
court, | should not be much disposed to re-
ceive any statement of that sort, with implicit
faith. This new essay i'll that line has not
tended TO remove my sceptisisln on that sub
jec;.
The court inform AS, that il is n part of our
history, that at the adoption OF our constitution,
the states were greatly indebted that suits
were instituted and general alarm produced
thro ughout the Union that to quiet this APP
prehcnson the It'll amendment was produced
by Congress and adopted by the states. They
inter from the yer, terms Of the amendment
t1at Its motive was not TO maintain the sovc-
rclgnty OF the states from the degradation of
belnS compelled to appear before federal
court because a state may still be sued by
another state or foreign government.
This IS the second instance in which the
court have made the dignifed character ofthe
historian suhservient to party purposes. The
TACT Is as imperiShabe as the continent which
we mhabit, that the predominant feeling at the
adoption OF the constitution, was an appre-
hension that too much had been conceded bv
the states to the federal government and that
their independence would be endangered by
too great an anxiety to strengthen the Union.
rms feeling existed in full force at the time of
the amendment, and was particularly called
INTO action by the recent decision of the SUI
premc court. | have not access to the me-
moirs OF the time, nor the debates in congress
on that subject but | have the most perfect
confidence TINT those authorities would fully
bear me ont i'll the assertion, that the great
moving cause of the amendment, was to re-
store the states in some degree 10 the high
ground froEl which they had descended
win TINS fact staring them in the face, the
court have not hcstated 10 ascribe the amend
mclt to motives better suited to their present
objects, which are dishonourable to the states.
and inadequate to the effect produced. They
represent the states as fraudulent debtors, who
wished to escape the coercion OF an impartial
tribunal, and render their creditors dependent
on their own will. Upon what facts this as
sertion Is founded, am at Il loss to conceive.
In what instances have the states refused to do
justice to their creditors? If any such had
occurred, they would have been blazoned to
the world, through the ilnumerabe channels
in which pnblic opinion vents itself. The
truth cannot be disguised by the studied ST.
lcnce OF the supreme court, that the amend
mcnt did not proceed from an aversion to pay
lustdeots, but from the mode i'm which thew were
to be recovered. The states did think il n
degradation to their sovereign character, to be
summoned into a federal court to answer eve
ry private claim. The court think ii a concl,l-
slye answer to this doctrine, that there are
still some cases in which state may be sued. |
nave before pointed out the broad line of dis
JUNCTION between suits brought by one state
against another or by foreign government a.
gainst state, and suits by individuals against
state: The reasons for this distinction are
too palpable TO need repetition, and it is unne-
cessary to say that they do not impair the
force of the principle that suit cannot be
brought against state by an individual in
any case. The court themselves had a GLIMPSE
OF TINS distinction when they said that the i'll
rSdieuOn IN cases between state and other
states or foreign governments " might be essen
tai to the preservation of peace "a reason
winch cannot apply to the claims of an indi-
yIdual- But in what manner does this prove
that the amendment was not dictated by res
Pect for the dignity of the states In the ca
scs still left to the federal Jurisdiction, the re-
spect for state dignity was counteracted by a
stronger motive, viz: that of /" PRESERVING
peace" In the cases prohibited by the a.
inendment the latter motive had no existence
and the former eXerted its uncontrolled infrl.
encc Indeed the belief that controversies
between two states, or state and foreign couu-
tries, would be extremely rare, might have
bad its influence in retaining this fragment OF
federal jurisdiction; since the court inform us
that there was not much reason to fear that
foreign or sister states would be creditors to
any considerable amount" Had il not been
for this persuasion, the amendment would
probably have obliterated every trace of uris-
diction over the states.
But, after all, the amendment must sneak
for itself A written instrument would be of
little value, five were still permitted TO roam
over the field of doubtful speculation. Where
the constitution is explicit, will not accept
the theories of the supreme courtin opposition
to ITS unequyocal language.
1t VIII be proper TO give the exa ct terms oil
the amendment in order to comprehend the
nee criticisms of the supreme court. II is in
thesc words: "The judicial power of the
United states shall not be construed to extend
to any suit IL law or equity commenced or
prosecuted against one of the United States
10y citizens OF another state, or by citizens or
subjects of any foreign state"
In my 9th number ] have pointed out the
decisive operation which this amendment has
upon the present question. ! will now exam
Inc fine VarlOfig met hoIs lv ssf,tdf, fo e,,,,r,.