The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-22
and The United States about this territory that must

people OF Afca and those Of Afdea had Often contende
and wearIed by many losses both Sides referred the
affair to the arbitration OF the Roman people Both par
ties attended 10 support their claims and an assembly
held by the magistrates their request Here the
matter was debated with great vehemenee and after the
Witnesses had been produced, when the tribes ought 10
have been called, and the assembled proceed give their
az ssrs arose one PsSa ssaPs Il psesIan
70 speak on matter which concerns the interest Of the
w S MOI sSs s fss N
ing that he was not worthy OF aenon, and should not
ne s ae $ . q ss
on the lfibnne for protection The tbunes, who la al
most every case are rather ruled by than rule The multi
say what he pleased he then began with informing Them
y soldier il he very y a and a was
young even them that being his twentieth campaign when
therefore, speak with Lnowease Of an affair Which, though
aler such Length q une was generally forSosn was
said, had belonged to The territory o. Coro and when
oorol was ssken became ~ the right q war me prop-
The Ardeans Africans could justify their expecla
lions Of snrepiousy wrestling from the Roman STATE, by
.aa a s S Ss s e q s
had never advanced any kind q lain Eor his part he
himself old ii he was to decline asserting BY his voice.
the only means then in his power tlia TO those lands
tribusd acquire; aud he warmly recommended Il 10
the people not @ be led by improper notions q decacy
The consuls when they perceived mat 5capius was
heard only with silence but with Appreciation appealed
10 KDus ana against the lndny OF pfucctuuRS
them TO the tribes beseeching them mot to be gully Of
still more pefuicious. by converting their
Ter in dispute, whereou they Were decide judges
pecaJ when, the case siod although II We're allowa
bic Jf judge show regard to his enoument, yer
the utmost advantage that could accrue from the seizure 81
the lands would by no means counicrbalance the loss
which they in The alienation Of the affections
OF the ae by such o. nusticc for the loss repu
what can be asiiaed Must deputies carry home lhls
acaounll Must this be made known 70 the world Must
give % he ormer what joy 70 the later Did they imagine
the neighbong Saies would npule this Prccseding
to Scapuus, an old babber In the assembliesf This IN
deed would serve, instead Of statue, dignity the Scap
but The Roman people would incur the i'm pata-
claims Of Others; for what judge in etween pri
persons, acted in this adjndging 70 him
SELF dead as lie was 70 ali sense o. shame, would
such manner Thus the consuls, thus the senators ex
had greater influence The tribes, being
Called gave their judgment that the land in question was
might With justice have been determined. had the
sIs ss s s ws
degree esseaed BY the equity o. he ls; nor DID j. ap
hideous coors than did the Roman Senate The
remainder Of The year passed without any commoon either
at home or abroad.
hope the decision on this matter will not make the
cases parallel This judgment of the Romans after
wards reversed and the land surrendered to the rghtfu
owner which trust WI also be the case in regard to
Texas.
Mr.. MASC I am moi at all surprised that the hon.
orable senator Texas felt somewhat sensitive to a
proposition, deliberately made in the Senate. to order a
suit to be brought by the United States against the State
which he so worthily represents here. am obliged to
confess that apprehend should feel no little ndgna-
ton, representative OF the State Of Virginia, #
proposition were made TO institute suit by the United
States against tEat State for any purpose TO try question
of boundary anything else. Sir, this omnibus bill,
il has been called now TO be used for the purpose Of
migrating upon it, by legislative exposition express
OF the of the Congress OF the United States
to the proper Interpretation OF the constitution, in the
clause which creates and defines the judicial power
feel other interest in this than far any authority
should be derived from hereafter for every gentleman
knows il the bill should pass and the President should
institute this suit in obedience to the request Of Congress-
that the Supreme Court must STILL in its consideration OF
such direction, determine under the constitution, whether
it could or could not entertain the suit
Sir, at former day, when this subject was alluded to
in debate, ventured to deny that the constitution
tered upon the judiciary authority TO entertain suit
brought by the United States against Of the States,
and should equally deny that the constitution any
where confers upon the Judiciary power TO entertain
suit brought by any one State against the United States
These the two propositions contained in the amend
men,s proposed BY the senator from kentucky How do
which authorizes the Supreme Court, any subordinate
court entertain suit where State shall be party
the side and the United States party on the other
Nowhere Sir. the clause OF the constitution comforting
judicial power is very restrictive in its terms and APP
prehend that senators who disposed to favor this
amendment will find clause OF the constitution upon
which they can present even plausible argument TO
tain IL except the clause which says "the judicial power
shall extend" "to controversies TO which the United
States shall be party"
The second section OF the third article OF the consItu
ton extends the jurisdiction also OF the federal courts
far the States are concerned, to controversies be-
tween two. or more Siates;. between a State and
citizens OF another State; and "beiween State and
foreign States, citizens. or subjects" But by the
ninth amendment OF the constitution which il declaalory
ONLY il els provided that "he judicial power of the
United States shall not be construed 10 extend 10 any
suit in law equity, commenced prosecuted against
one OF the United States BY citizens OF another State,
b. citizens subjects OF any foreign State So that,
the law of the constitution stands far the States
concerned the judicial power extends only to controver
sizes between 1.-TWO more States between State
and foreign Saiesn The history OF this amendment 10
the constitution briefly this The Judiciary clause above
cited had Deen construed by the Supreme Court, IN the
care OF "Chishoms executor the State OF Georgia,
reported in the second volume OF Daass reports, TO
fer jurisdiction on the federal courts, in suits brought
agafasf State by citizen OF another State and the
amendment adopted by the States hree ourths con-
clrng) in 179S, aud will be found by its terms aot TO
abrdee take away jurisdiction previously conferred.
but 10 declare the true Interpretation OF the constitution
ais. citizens subjects where the States goes
Uotunfariiy intoco plaintiff Thus, sir, although
the expression is quite broad that which concerns
controversies In which the United States shall be party
yet the just Interpretation ascetaned by the amend
10 conine their Jurisdiction still TO only where
the State was plaintiff
rccoect, III reading some few years ago the debates
in the convention called in Virginia 10 atify the consu
ton OF the United States objection made, think
by Patrick Henry that, under The terms OF the judiciary
clause, Safe could be sued party defendant and
thus brought iUto the bar OF the federal courts
II was contended that, under that clause, il was COM
pctent for citzen OF foreign State or OF any State