Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-04-06
THE QUESTION
March. 1892

what Mason, and Madison, and Marshall Thought
III nes gone by These historical authorities must now
DC called oth Ii the Supreme Court can exercise the
Jusui'u0n' which now claims of dragging STATE 10
us oar and there aunulng the laws which she has
'd Tor carrying into effect those powers of sovereignty
which she has never delegated TO the Federal Govern
m"h then are the Rights of the States but an e,pptv
sound.
We respectfully offer these quotations of our Ccso
dent asa part OF our offering the Cause of Georgia, But
It'll not her cause alone-but the co,sc Of o' c.,
the Union She is to fight the battle as il werobu,
Virginia has been already refractory" against the same
judicial usurpauon-and she may again be questioned
about her sovereignty, by the same tribunal.
,on FOR THE E.NQUIRER
GEok"iA AND THE SUPREME COURT
In the case OF CoheaS The STATE of p;yg;,;, ID.
caeu some lew years SINCE held by the Suprcmc
Gou' m us opinion delivered by the Chief Justicc1 that
the Judicial authority OF that tribunal embraced ~ 80
where of the States tcas summoned "a ;t -
Pcnee TO answer the complaint of one of lis own ci,o
vGuSe, Tor me State of pirgi'sia instructed
10 question me jurisdiction of the Court aone-and il
oveTued TO decline further appearance ON the Doyf nj
PTginia. ' 0' "'e P"' y
iney ana so. The Court assumed the jurisdiction,
but upon the merits decided against the appellant
In the late case from Georgia that State warned NOR
appearing at all. 0N'" Noe''"e"
The jurisdiction where State is brouol in &c on,o,
zee was again asserted-and mandate has gone forth
whereby judgment is ordered against state II re,
or in other words, how the State of Georeio i 10
creed into obedience 10 the mandate of he Supye,ne
Court. " ''"P''"'e
The sanction of judicial authority whom oo.o,,o, ,
ward citizen matter of every day experience A 6er
lacaS viii strip him of his property. A capias will de-
prvc him OF his Hbertyor by the fiat of the Judgo his
tYe may be taken What sanction, there is TO iuJ;c;
,nGr'y when assumed toward State, is problem yet
me cali inc attention OF your readers 10 the pecuotons
some oil The sages and best statesmen of Virginia on this
very subject: ~ ~
On the question whether under the Constitution t tho
otate could be brought into the Federal Courts
as dgenadn-ihe question, apprehend 10 be the same
When summoned as appellee This being but name for
me defendant in error, as The Lawyers term it,
quote from the debates in the Virginia Convention
@ 10 consider Tie form OF government proposed to the
Sa'eS' by the General Convention at Philadelpha-i
The present Constitution of the United States
ne judiciary clause being under consideration TEL
jecng to much OF the Judiciary clause as xten &
Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts "to controverie be-
tween state, and citizens of another State'')-
" How will their jurisdiction in this case dor Let rem
tcmen look the westwarl-cloms resncciner H.
Janus; Every ilqudacd account other claim against
this state, viii be tried before the Federal Court Is
not t disgracefu? Is this State to be brought In the
oar 81 justice, like delinquent indiriduaR Is The
Sovereignty IF the State to be arraigged ike a e,,t
or pirate o6ender2 mn The States rnpdergof t5;s
moTfV'c9fioW think this power perfectly unnecessa
q But let us pursue this subject further Nm, i -
DC zone, judgment be obtained against a Stafe2-
"ill you issue ieri aciasIt would be ludicrous TO
i'm iail Tyo,-
as me judgment then to be enforced? A power which
cannot be executed ought not to be granted
us consider the operation OF the last subject Of It's
coghHahce-c between State or the Gift
Gems thereof, and foreign State citizens or sulecs
mere Is confusion in this case-this much however
may be raised out of it-hat suit will be brought
against virginia She may be sued by a foreign State
hat reciprocity is there in III In suit between Viz
gin9 and foreign State, is the foreign State to be bound
by the decision: Is there similar privilege iven 10 me-
in foreign States? Where will Won find n parallel reo,
lauon: Ho'o icH The decisiOn5e enforced? O,,lJ b,,
NE ultima ratio Regum." "
JAMES MADISON (defendno tbis Glance \ OIL =; - =,
TO MIR. Mason, page $780, ~
It's jurisdiction in controversies between State and
I"ons o aho'her state Is much objected to- and per-
maps without reason. 1T is not in the pocer of indiy
d"aS to call any State court The onIv operation
IL can nave is that III State should wish to bring suit
against cIen, II must be brought be fore the Federal
Court ms will give satisfaction TO individuals as IL
VIII prevent citizens, on whom State NAV have n claim
being dissatisfied with the State Courts It is case
weh cannot often happen, and il it should be found
improper, il will be altered"
appears to me, that this (he clause in question:
can have no operation but ths-to give citizen rigbt
to be heard i'll the Federal Courts-a,,d If n SiGte
S"0"@ condescend TO be party this Court man take
"c0gmSdnce Of u"-(page 39l)
PATRICK HENRY in reply to Mr.. Madison. naco
39f):- va "'"u'''"' page
Mr.. Chairman have already expressed painful sem
sauons at The surrender of great rights and l am
again dflVen TO the mournful recollection. The
purse is gone--the sword is gone-and here il tbe
only hing "l any importance that is 10 remain with
us-As think, this is more fatal defect than an,, COO
have yet considered, forgive me if aempt TO rcfne
ihe observations made by the honorable member i'm the
Ehar, ana last up ltappears me, that the powers in
me section before you, observation-disclosures or if re-
0"ciofe 10 practice, dangerous in The erfrenle."
(Pdge 39T '' As TO the controversies between State
ana citizens OF another State his construction of it, TO
me- perfectly incomPrchensble lie says, il will seldom
happen that State has such demands upon individuals
mere IS nothing TO warrant such an assertion But he
says that State may be plaintiff ouIl If gentlemen
PeTVert the most clear expressions and the usual mean
ing OF the language Of the people, there is an end OF
" all argument What says the paper' That il shall
have cognizance Of controversies between State ami
cllenso oil another State without discriminating between
painful and defendant What says the honorable gen
" uenen! The contrary-.lat the State can ouiU be
Pf0ntW when the State is debtor, there is no reci-
PFocliy ~ seems to that gentlemen ndvput tohai
:" conSfTuetton they please IT, What Is Justice to
be done to one party, and to the other II gentle
. men take this liberty NOW, WHAT WILL. THEY
" DO WHEN OUR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES ARE IN
" rHBfR'Pow ERR"
JoMN MARSHALL On reply to Mr.. Henry, page 405)
" win respect TO disputes between State, and the
citizens OF another State jurisdiction has been deced
WIN unusual vchemcnce. hope gentleman uii
" hinh maj STATE UW be CALLED Al THE BAR OF
| " THE FEDERAL COURT
sis there no such present. Are there not man,
cases in which the Legislature Of Virginia is party AMI
" YET the state is not sueR IT NOT RATIONAL Tc
-" SUPPOSE THAT THE SOVEREIGN POWER sHALL Br
DRAGGED BEFoRE a COURT.
The intent is 10 enable States to recover claims Of in
divlduals residing in other States contend this con
strCscton IS warranted by tho words But, say they
there viii be parfalty 10 iLf State cannot be defen
dd1lf an fndoidai cannot pT0ceed TO obtain jJg
'" STATE IT Is NEoEssA Rx ropL 50, AMI CANNOT ~