Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-06-19

country, yet ii one or the other must be
abandoned, will cling to that government
which protects my person and my property
which is united TO all my habits, aud endear-
eel to me by thousand recollcciions The
supreme court seem 10 have taken up the
idea that every check to power will ncccssa-
rily be attended with collision, and every
collision must PROSTATE all the energies OF
government. ,fhis was not the opinion of
the authors ofour constitution. Then thought
that liberty could not exist where power was
uncontrolled; and left much to be provided
for by the occasion rs il might occur, trust
Ing To the good sense, moderation and firm
ness of a people, who, in other times, have
not proved deficient in those inestimable qua
lities. .ualo pericuiosam HJcnatcm guam
quleidm serritutcn,, was their motto.
shall pass over many topics of minor inn
portance, and come to one which is most de-
cisiyc on the stability of states. The SUI
prcme court take the ground that the prohi-
bItion In the 1 1th amendment to sue state,
does not extend to any case where the luris-
diction arises from the character ot'the cause,
as they have been pleased to denominate it,
Their argument is that the circumstance of
the case arising out of 90 the laws of the u.
States" would confer jurisdiction on the
federal courts, whoever might be the parties.
Ii the court have been successful in establish
ing this position, it will be the most signal
triumph ever gained by the legerdemain of
construction over the plainest words that
can be used in constitution. / deny the
doctrine in every part. / contend that the
circumstance of the Cohens being citizens of
Pirgsnia would ofitself be fatal to this suit ;
and that even they had been citizens of an
other state or foreigners, the 18th amend
ment would have prohibited the jurisdiction
Ofthe federal court.
IL have before said, that suit by a citizen
against his own state never would have
been hroughtin the federal court, even by
the original constitution. This negative as
sertion can only be disproved by showing
some clause applicable to the case. But This
position is supported by collateral considera-
tons. While the constitution is totally
silent as toa citizen suing hisotrn state, it cX-
pressly provides for the case of the citizen
of one state suing another state. The eX-
preston OF one of these eases is the exclusion
of the other. 1t is not possible to imagine n
reason for prohibiting suit between a state
and citizens of another state, which would not
apply with increased force to a suit between
a state and It's own citizens. If state preiu-
dices be assigned rs the cause, these would
undoubtedly cxistin terdegrec towards
members ofthc same community. The 81
lence of the amendment as TO citizen SUI
Ing his own state, is well accounted for, by
the silence of the original constitution. 1t
was not necessary to take away a power,
which had never been given.
2. The other ground, that the amendment
does not apply to cases arising under the
constitution, laws, sc. is still more ndcfen-
slble. Ii is an insult to the understandings
OF the American people. As | would not
hazard such an assertion without due con-
sideration, think it incumbent on me TO ex-
PLAIN fully the, reasons on which it is made
The position ofthc supreme court is, that the
amendment does not prohibit suit against
state Ill any case which arises out of the
constitution, laws, sc. of the United States
Now what is the amendment ?" 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, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign
state" The only question is, whether the
suit OF Cohens VS.. the state of Virginia comes
under the description of any suit' If it
docs not, then language is only calculated
to misiead, and the distinguishing gift of
heaven to man, is a curse sent in its wrath.
There is only one forlorn hope left for the
supreme court, which may serve as a ta6ulu
IN ndiyiug'o. They may say that this is
not suit by the citizen of another state or
the citizen or subject of a foreign state, but
by citizen suing his o,cn state. Unfortunate
ly however, the court have deprived them
selves Of this plank by contending for the
broad proposition, that the 18th amendment
does not extend to any case which arises
out of the constitution, laws, SC. of the Uni
ted States whoever may be the parties. So
that whether the Cohens had been citizens of
another state or not, the decision would
havebeen the same. The supreme court
were unanimously ofopniont that the amend
ment does not embrace such case altho'
the words are vs. comprehensive rs the Eng
lish language can afford atho' it is expressly
declared, that :" the judicial power, &c"-
shall not extend TO Z" any Suil'' in law or equi-
ty, commenced, sc. against one of the Unit
ed States, by citizens OF another state, &c.
yet six grave judges have decided, without
dissenting voice, that the expression any suit
does not includca particular class of suits J
This event is now new era in judicial his
tory.
IL is the more remarkable that the court
should have made this decision, because they
have proceeded upon different principle of
construction, in this very case. When it was
necessary TO prove that the judicial article
gave them jurisdiction of such case as the
present, they rely on the general expressions
used in that article, and even stretch them
far beyond their constitutional import But
when il isnecessary to prove that the ! tn
amendment does not take away the jurisdc-
ton in question, they contract the broad ex-
preston TO a smallness of compass, which
must startle the most Submissive votary of
the supreme court. They place the consti-
tuition on the bed 0fProcrustcs, and lop or
stretch it to suit their own views. There is
but one principle TO be discerned in all this
variety Of decision and that is, to throw as