Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1867-05-17

| here in the exercise of the original iurisdic-
! ton of this court. I 10 not intend to re-
! state my arguments. The learned gentle
man who first argued for the cOmplainants
did see the point, and he did not exactly
e7ade it; but he passed it by with so few
remarks that [ am very we'll content to
! leave the argument upon that point as it
has been made, without adding word
My learned friend who closed the case
do not say he evaded the pOint-certain-
Iy did not notice it. / am sure he did not
evade it. Perhaps [ may say that on that
+ lofty level from which he regarded this
case he was so far above it that he did not
see it, It is the only way I can under
stand Why that point was not referred to
at all by him III his argument.
Without adding word to what said on
that point, let me use it simply as an illus
tratiOn to show how important thing IN
such a case rs this is this question OF lu1Is-
dictioD, even over the parties. The gentle
men tell rs that here is State asking the
interference of this court to protect 1t from
destruction. Ii comes into this court as the
final arbiter as the only tribunal that can
give it relief; and they object that [ do not
admit that the court has jurisdiction to
grant such relief in so pressing a CASE
Now, let he suppose that just these laws
were passed as they have been passed, and
that in their eXecution-fOr you must find
parties-it had happened that Mr.. Stanton,
and General Grant, and General Pope, and
General Ord had, every one OF them, been
citizens of the District Of Columbia, OF, 1t
YOU please, every one of them citizens of
Georgia in the one case or Of Mississippi
in the other; we should have had the same
evil, the same mischief, the same great
question but could this court have touch
ed it No matter what might be the anX-
iety of the court or of the country 10 reach
that question and to give relief, / ask my
learned friends if these defendants had
happened to be citizens Of the District OF
Columbia, could you have move l the first
step in your case for yon that regard the
Constitution as so sacred must look at that
clause Of it that only gives jurisdiction IN q
case where q State IS plaintiff, and another
State, OF the citizen Of another State, IS the
defendant, and in no other case, no matter
how great the question or how terrible the
injury against which redress is sought
That illustrates that the question Of juris-
diction is everything that the magnitude
of the question itself does not vest jurisdic-
ton, but the arrangement Of the parties
and the particular subject-natter at stake.
But now, passing from the point Of the
want Of jurisdiction because Of the parties,
leaving that point on the argument made
in the opening, [ come next to a much
more important questionable jurisdiction
of the court over the 'subiect-matter, the
Jurisdiction of the court to recognize the
right set up, and to give the sort Of relief
that IS required.
First of all, who are the plaintiffs that
ask the interposition of the court-ask for
something within judicial cognizance p
They are States of this Union at least, let
us call them so for the purposes Of the ar-
gument and Of the case-poIitical corpora
tons called States The gentlemen admit
that Of course. Undoubtedly such politi-
cal corporations may be parties plaintiff. f.
The Constitution contemplates that State,
as a State and political corporatic.-, may
have a controversy with another State or
with simple individual. There is no
doubt of its competency to sue. The ques
ton is, what may it sue for ? That is the
point to be considered here. My learned
that, in this respect, the State of .,lissis-
sippi, which he represents, resembles the
Bank of the United States as a corporation );
that State is a public corporation, and
that the Bank of the United States was a
public corporation and that this court,
with respect to right set up by the Bank
of the United States, public corporation,
give relief, not on the footing of property,
not on the footing that it was a private cor
poration. but because it stood as an ac-
knovledgedp public CORPORATION lust as much
as a State or as the United States. This
carries rs back TO the text books Let us
see what q corporation is and what are the
and what sort of q corporation
the United States Bank was. In ANGEL 4
Ames, on Corporations, page Q, section Il,
it is said
..rr,,o,,o or, ,,,,,i<,,,s kinds f oo,,,,oo+;o,s
-,.7,;l ~ "A l11 Xxx ,1p>.as -
llln "a, @ l,-l ~ }oot 3'it,' 3 ',,,l t
CIV =, 'ltl' p''i 'l 'i'> II
Dora+ion4 are subicct.to certain liabilities
which do not attach to the members of
Others, It is. therefore. proper, after nav
inc explained the meaning and. general OBJ
iect of BODY corporate to cIe1r the wav
70 nrivatc cornorations and ncrha,,s at the
some time ointifv tba curiosity Of some
readers bv q nre!iminarv notice of cornora-
tions of = higher Kind The word c0rD0ra-
ton is we Know. oftentimes sioniticant of
clothed With extensiy, civil au-
th0ri+v ana \ community of that Kind is
sometimes called 8 1,n5jIjc07 sometimes q