The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-22

You do find clause which authorizes State 10
State, but authorizing State TO sue the United
lon thai the United States make State party, or
that State make the United States party in the
federal courts. to show distinctly the clause which will
citizen 10 bring like suit -
Sir; would give the answer which was given BY the
late John Marshall that is absurd to suppose you can
make the United States party in any suit against ns
will. precisely il is absurd to suppose that you can
make State party against its Will There Is class
the relations existing between the parties i Is incompe
tent for them to sue each other In municipal law these
relations are perfectly we'll defined Why is il that one
Statutory pohib biz Whatever Why nav moi
wife sue husband, or a husband wife There is no
statutory prohibition II is because by the policy Of law
is considered inconyenent and mschievous that par
ties holding such relations each other should be allow
ed to assume the hostile attitude OF litgans in courts
And principles shown from these same high sources OF
public policy far strongly forbid that sovereign
States should be arragned in ordinary and merely munich
pal courts against their consent imports an absurdiy
upon lis face that part should sue the WHOLE and
Sir, the honorable senator from Texas has well stated
The condition in which Texas, any other State, would
be placed, and the formidable character In which the
say the minds of the trainers of the
sttution that the United States should sue OF these
States in her own courts or any other. And however
broad the language OF the constitution the policy OF the
law forbds that il should be interpreted Now, sir,
except that clause where the judicial power is declared
sTsnd g e which ns 0nea Sfs
be commended that the United States be brought
as parry n court. Or BY which the United States can
nit iha giving as 70 asc clause he By strict
analogy, which is given 10 kindred clause by the
amendment, quoted i can only be construed e sx
and where the party defendant is party subject TO suit
in the ordinary forms OF law
Now my objections this bill are. II it should pass
with this provision in il, that It may have weight
with the Judiciary legislative exposition that it may
unsettle their scales oil justice TO some extent al
though perfectly aware that far as the sanctions q law
are concerned II will be valueless the paper on
which il may be impressed No, sir, let leave i to
the constitution TO determine. will add. Mr. President.
one other view in which this amenement appears e me
particularly obnoxious You propose 10 purchase from
Texas more than onethrd Of her territory, at price
liked by yourself; and in the same bill make her dis
sued and thereby be subjected to all the disadvantages
such controversy with 50 formidable power the
United States and e the degradation Of her coercion
Mr.. BUTLER. | rise reluctantly TO tell the senator
from Kentucky, who has introduced this amendment,
which will cause pause in our deliberations, and
Mr. FOOrE. Will the honorable senator from South
from Kentucky is disposed to withdraw his amendment
he does 30, he will probably save two or three days de-
Mr.. UNDERWOOD / had some doubt about offering
this amendment at this time; but il is before the
Senate, wish to express my views upon it. although
was willing TO take vote upon it without discussion.
Mr.. BUTLER The senator from Kentucky can pro-
coed nov b. desires to DC 80 give way
senator from South Carolina.
Mr.. BUTLER intended to make some remarks with
the view OF directing the attention OF the Senate TO the
lay down the proposition, that know of case in
which the United States be sued inuitum be
party suit without its consent and in that point OF
view is but convention submission to arbitration
know of in which the United States may be by
law party, except plaintiff There may be contro
yersy in which the federal court primarily may have
t,rsul s.esOp ntba
dues under revenue laws to enforce penalties. &c. In
such cases, the rights and Liabilities OF the parties are ex
pressly recognised, and result from law and obligation,
aud subjects OF ordinary jurisdiction, as between the
government and private ctzens, or corporations, &c
The parties in the Supreme Court limited and enume
rated State can never be party defendant except in
the Supreme Court and then only in the specified
in the constitution and then is court OF exclusive and
original jurisdiction In all cases affecting ambassadors
and other public ministers and those ~ which State
jurisdiction In such cases, the court would occupy the
position Of indifference, regards the parties before III
States, or where State is involved in controversy with
any other party Than the United States.
In such cases. tdecison would not involve the extent
OF its jurisdiction, the oil the power OF The
federal government; and could have no temptation to
take part with the other of the ltgatng parties
Two more States, being parties, may dispute about
out Of the constitution Of the United States and these
disputes thama be submitted 10 the Supreme Court for
adjudication by the States themselves I do not
process shall be served or how suit shall be brought.
or how State may be made party or how II shall be
brought before the Supreme Court There has hereto
lore been little difficulty, as the States carrying on the
litigation before the Supreme Court have made OBJ
lection being brought before it. The United States
has assumed TO be party, and hope never will
and before they attempt 10 take such position before
one OF the departments OF their federal organization
they ought have legislative sanction and drec
ton Before the United Sstes, party, undertake TO
bring before judicial tribunal sovereign State, that
may perchance be dspung the extent OF federal power
enforced by the State ITSELF there should be Some act TO
direct the suit and the mode OF conducting III the govern
should think proper suit, it ought to
emanate from some other branch oil the government than
The tribunal that is TO try II or It's officers No such act
has passed for sucha purpose and yet the federal
and State Jurisdictions have often come In conflict Such
conflicts have always brought in question the consu-
onal extent Of federal power growing out Of State and
federal legislation
The States as members have reserved rights; and,
when encroached on who shall Judge between them and
their usurping antagonist Shall il be their court
This would give one department OF the same govern
ment power 10 sustain The claim OF another and would
take from the State all their power OF i-poteciion
sovereignty, they would, If obliged to acquesce, have
delegated the power OF taking that sovereignty from
them If infractons are made on the constitutional
rights Of the State, 1t will be under claim OF power in
the legislature. Whilst Is admitted that il would be u
safe for the legislature TO determine finally upon the
tent OF it's powers. is commended that il would BE- entire
ly sale for the judiciary TO discharge that Office Would
the Supreme Court be safe tribunal Would IL be right
that OF the departments OF the federal H.
self should decide upon the extent Of powers and
jurisdiction, and then upon the power Of the federal gov