Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-06-08
FOR THE ENQUIRER.
ON THE LOTTERY DECISION.
TO the People Of the United States.


amendment 10 the constitution, fellow-citi-
zens, the court is pleased to advert to, what
it terms, "ptct of our history" That his
tory does not Justify the assertion that al
the states We're greatly indeJted' at the time
OF adopting that amendment. Ifsonie states
were debtors, Others must, probably, have
| been their creditors, and had contrary in
| terest, as TO the amendment i'll question. Pos
| sibly, however, the court meant, that the ci-
tlzens of those states, rather than the states
themselves,w were indebted. Ifso, they only,
| and not the states, would be sued, and that
case did not call for this amendment nor
! could g the fear of these suits being prose
| cuted,' in the federal courts, form g a very
serious objection TO the adoption of the con-
| stitution." Notwithstanding this amendment
did take place. these citizens have been sued,
and these debts all recovered against them.
| At the time of the amendment being a.
dopted, only three of the states had been
sued, in the federal court Massachusetts,
Georgia, and virgniafaj As for Virginia,
that suit was not brought for any debit
due by her. 1t was for land claim upon
her, by the Indiana Company, which had
been formerly decided in her favour, and
this decision was pleaded in bar(b) 1t is,
| therefore, libel upon her To say, that she.
of debts being recovered against her. The
court has moi slIewn that any such existed. A
| gain; rs only three suits had then been brought
| against the states, some other motive than
! the number OF those suits, or the greatness
OF the danger, arising therefrom, must have
| produced the amendment in question. If
the alarm was general" twas not from the
| fears aforesaid, but from fear of consoiida-
ton, resulting from the judgments of the s,l-
| preme court, and the total change OF the gov
eminent. On the third of December, l793fcl
the Legislature of Virginia had resolved,
that state cannot, under the constitution
of the United States, be made defen-
dant, al the suit any individual, and that
the decision Oft the supreme federal court,
that a state may be placed in that situation,
. is inconsistent tcih, and dangerous TO, The
sovereignty and independence Of the indiri-
dltat states, as the same tends to general
consolidation of these confederaied repub-
lies. 1t was, at the same time, resolved,
| that our senators and representative in Con
| gress, he INSTRUCTED to obtain such amend
ments to the constitution, 90 as will remove
or explain, any clause or article of the said
constitution, which can be construed to
imply, or justify, decision that state is
| compeilable to ANSWER, in any salt, by an
| individual or individuals, i'll any court of the
United States" 1t was BECAUSE the states
| claimed to be sovereign and independent
states, although they had entered into a
! federal compact, and because, one sovereign
state has no right to set itself up as the Judge
of another (see Vattel, pa. $40, 25O,) that this
alarm took place: and not on the sordid
| ground, of an unwillingness iii the states, to
| pay debts which are not shewn, to have had
| an existence.
| The court infers that the motive of this
amendment, on the part of the states, was
not TO avoid the degradation of the said
states, by being carried into the courts Of
another government. 1t infcrs this, because
| that jurisdiction is still ceded as to con-.
| troyerses between two states, or state and
a foreign state. As TO these the jurisdiction
Is strictly proper, the courts of neither party
| being competentto bind the other, and forms
just exception from the principle before
stated. But the case contemplated by the
eleventh amendment is of another character
There was no reason to yield up the soye-
reign rights of the states, to individuals of
other states, when it was withheld from our
own citizens, and when our citizens did not
receive a correspondent fayour,in other states
or countries. 1t is clearly an error. there
fore, to infer that this objection did not pre-
vail, with the states, in relation to a case i'm
which it forcibly, and, emphatcally, exist
ed, because 1t was relinquished in another
| case, in which it could not have been Justly
| urged.
The court says, there must be some other
cause than the dignity of the state, which
produced this amendment. That other cause
was the great principle Just alluded to. As
it is asserted, that the dignity OF the state
was not the real cause of the opposition,
l1n 10 81, 4.
ography of the patriotic Governor Hancock,
II Sanderson's Lives, 30 said, on good au-
thorty, TO have been written by John Adams,
it is said, that the former sc in favouring a
confederate republic, did not vindicate, with
less scrupulousness, the DIGNITY of the
individual states, and that, in a suit brought
against the state of Massachusetts, i'm the
court of the United States, in which he was
summoned, as Governor, to answer the
prosecution, he resisted the process, and
maintained inviolatc the SOVEREIGNTY of
" the commonwealth. AS TO the sense of
the commonwealth of Virginia, on that sub
ect, in addition TO what has been already
said, beg leave TO refer to the following re-
solutions of her Legislative body. In the
session Of October, 1920, the Legislature,
referring TO the suit then depending against
Virginia, in the federal court, inter ala, re-
solved, that the state cannot be made
defendant in the said court, at the suit of any
individuals" Again, in the session of 1860,
it was resolved, that the executive take such
measures, to defend the above mentioned
suit, " as may seem to them most condu
Give to the HONOUR and interest Of the
" commonwealth" ~ will only here add, from
The Fedcralist ~, thatitis inherent inthe ma
ture of sovereignty, not TO be amenablc, at
the suit OF an individual lCithom its consent,
and that this exemption is one of the attri-
butes of sovereignty, notD enjoyed by the