The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-06-22

his OWN Stale.' III uo's s"t '""' -....o,,s !
tend TO cases between q state anu cnMo"
of another State, &c. This would sccm ~
deny Jurisdiction in the former ease on sno
principle Of the maxim quoted apo,v.
But does the Constitution ADMIT oi ~;
such construction? IL Is contenaeu an"a
the section H., article 3, admits OF such
commandments. ~The judicial power
shall extend 10 all cases in law ana
equity arising under the Constitution,
Clearly and Enthusiastically II does no such
thing. Not according TO the opinion OF Tue
ablcst jurist this country has produced;
not according to Chief-Justice Marshali,
who undertook to explain the meaning OF
this clause In the case OF Cohens Us. Nr-
cinia. And now we viii quote from his
opinion In that case. with very lew com.
ments, and submit our case. ON page ooi
Judge Marshall says that the Constitution
Is supreme in all cases where 1t Is elnpoW-
cred to act; and speaking OF the judicial
department. on page $50, he says: at Is
authorized TO decide all cases, OF every de-
scrption, arising under the Constitution"
And on page 1893 he says: ave think
case arising under the Constitution cogni-
Fable in the courts OF the Union, whoever
may be parties to that case" The counsel
| for the defendant in error in Cohens Us.
| Virginia undertook TO say that because q
sovereign State could not be sued without
its consent that therefore It was excepted
from the clause, call cases in law and
equity arising Nnder the Constitution"
a conclusion without warrant, and one Tor
which the writer does not contend. The
case we are discussing IL, Can state be
sued by its own citizen? Now, let us
analvZe the clause, "The judicial form
shall extend" &C.. and get at its true mean
ing, and then see il under ii the affirmative
OF that proposition can be sustaincd-yiZ.,
that a citizen can sue his own State In the
Federal courts. The exact CLAUSE Isl
line JUDICIAL power shall extend to all
cases in law and equity arising under
this Constitution" not TO all questions
arising under the Constitution. Now,
there may be Jurisdiction because OF par
ties, and such cases are enumerated, but
where there is no jurisdiction because OF
parties-that is, where the mere circum-
stance OF parties does not give jurisdiction
there must be case in law and equity, and
before a case in law and equity can arise
there must be shown jurisdiction for some
other cause. of the question cannot be
brought into court, then there is no case
in law and equity, and no jurisdiction is
given by the words OF the article" See
page 4O5 Now, can this question now
under discussion be brought into court!
III not. it is no case in law and equity, and
therefore no jurisdiction is given by the
words of the article. We mJintain that IL
cannot be brought into court. Now, let
us see what Judge Marshall says in Cohens
Us. Virginia in regard to a citizen MAIN
tanning suit against his State in the Fede-
raj courts, which is now the question I'M
der discussion, beginning to read on page
4O2, first paragraph: "The counsel VINO
closed this argument put several cases TOT
the purpose OF illustration. Whl,h he sup
posed to arise under the Constitution, and
yet to be apparently without the !urlsdlc-
tion az the court Our case eLdctiy.
"Were a State to lay duty on exports,
, TO collect the money, and place it in her
treasury could the citizen who paid II be
: asked TO maintain suit in this court against
sucb State to recover back ,the money !
{ Perhaps not. Without deciding such sup
posed ease we may say that it is entirely
4 unlike that under consideration lie
! then saws "that in such Il case the law
[ raises an dSS1mpSH TO return the money,
| and II is upon that aSsumpSit that the
, action is TO be maintained" TO refuse
( more violation OF the Constitution than
70 refuse to comply with any other, and a
. the Federal courts never had jurisdiction
: over contracts between a State and its citi-
: zens they may have none over TINS.
= Mark the Federal courts never had
{ jurisdiction over contract. between q
= State and its citizens. As they never had
o jurisdiction the clause, call cases arising
Z &c. can have no application whatever.
1 That settles IL. But" lie continues,
: "suppose a citizen to refuse to pay this
A export duty, and a suit to be insti-
n tuted for the purpose OF compelling
i him to pay 1t. He pleads the ConSti-
> tuition OF the United States in bar
V OF the action, Notwithstanding which the
/ courts give Judgment against him. This
e would be case arising under the Constl'
n tuition" Note the distinction. The state
t Court had Jurisdiction, and then question
H under tue Constitution came up. 1t was q
e case in law and equity. But here Is i
3 stronger illustration still, and one very
j. analogous TO the question under discus
5 sion. On page l03 we read: "The case OF
l. A State which pays off its debts with paper
y money no more resembles this than &c
? those already adverled to. The courts
e have no jurisdiction over the contract
l. They cannot enforce ii nor judge OF IT.
e violation. Let il be that the act diScharg
e Ing the debt is mere nuility, and that It
e is still due. Yet tie Federal courts have
It no cognizance OF the case" One more in
e stance OF this character, ana the writer
.e will feel satisfied that he has proved hl'
# case. In respect to a violation OF the Con
It .titution by grant by State Of patent
Is OF nobility, counsel claimed that the Courl
l. could not annul the grant. Judge Marshal
'e saws: "This may be very true, but 10y
It no means iustifcs the inference drawn
,e from it. The article does not extend The
)f judicial power to every violation OF thu
d Constitution which may possibly TAXI
d place, but to case in law and equity, IL
(" which a right under such law is asserted il
is a court OF Justice. II the question Canno
10 be brought into court, then there is no cast
u in law and equity, and no jurisdiction i
Is given by the words OF the article. But il
y In any controversy depending in a court
e the cause should depend on the validity o.
he such law. that would be case arising
Sc under the Constitution to which the judi
he cial power OF the United States would cx
,r tend" See page 40j. | have done. The
n Iaborer is worthy OF his hire. and il my
lie friend "Amicus Curia" will turn trlt
IS friend Of the court and put it right on thi'
lie subject / Will feel fully compensated fol
q my labor.
G. Now, while / have quoted extensively
y from Cohens rs. Virginia in order t
IS strengthen the propositions advanced by
lie me, do not mean to say that Judge Mar
10 shall in that case decided that citizen die
D. or did not have 4 right to sue his owl
N state, for that case decided nothing bu
ID ths-that the appeal should not be di,
n missed, because il was not a suit dqainS
p a State at all, but mere transfer Of Il sui
Is by the State against It's citizens to the ap
IL Dellatc tribunal That covers the decision