Court Opinion

ID: 9841625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 19:59:57.561956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:23.998755
License: Public Domain

*752Mr. Chief Jiistice Taney,
dissénting:
I ,diásen,t from -.the opinipn of 'the Codft, upon the'.motion' to' dismiss the bill. It has; I find, been the uniform practice in this. Court,, for the justices who. differed from- the Court pn constitutional-: questions, to- express 'their dissent. In conformity to • this usage, I proceed to staté'briefly the ■principle; .on which I differ, but do not,.in this stage óf the. proceedings, think it necessary' to enter fully into the reasoning upon' which my opinion is fou'ndedj' The final, hearing of -fhé. case, when ali the facts are before the: Court; would be a',more.fit ■ occasion for'■éxámi’hingr various points stated In the, opinion of"th.e Court; ih'which l-dp ífot concur..
1 dp ■ not doubtsthe’ power pf. tBis'Court to hear and determine a. licontrdversy' between states,, or 'between, individuals, in- relation to the'boundaries of the states; Where, the suit is brought to try a right of property in the soil, :or 'any other right which is properly, the. subject, óf judicial cognizance and,; decision, and,which depends upon the true’, boundary line.
But''the powers given to' the courts of the United States'’by the constitution are judicial powers;, and extend -to'those subjects, only; which are -judicial in .their character; and■ not. to those which-.-ar,e political, And'whethef the suit is.between states of' between individuals, the matter -sued -for-must be one whieh is properly the 'Subject of .judicial; cognizance and control, in order to give jurisdiction to the Court to try and decide'the flights" óf the parties to-' the,stuff ■
The object of the bill filed by- Rhode Island; as stated.io the prayer, is a’s follows: That the'northern boundary'line between your .complainants arid the'state of Massachusetts may, by the order -and decide of- this .honourable Court, be ascertained and established, and that, the-rights of jurisdiction and sovereignty, of your complainants to the whole tract of. land, with the appurtenances mentioned, described, and granted, in and by the said Chapter or letters patent to the said ■ colony of Rhode Island and Providence plantations, hereinbefore .set forth and running on the. north, an, east and west line drawn three miles south of the waters of said Charles river;'or of. any' or every part1 thereof, may be restored and confirmed to your complainants, and your Complainants may be quieted' in the full and free enjoyment of her jurisdiction-and .sovereignty over the same; and the title, jurisdiction; anfi sovereignty óf the said state of Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations over the same;, be confirmed and esta-, blished by the decree of this honourable.Court; aiid that your com*753plainafits may have; such othef and' further relief in the premises as to this honourable'Court shall seerh meet, and consistent with equity arid good .conscience.:
It appears fróm this statement of the object of the bill, that Rhode Island claims no right, of property in the soil of the territory'in controversy. The title to the land is not in, dispute between her and Massachusetts: The subject matter which Rhode.Island seeks to recover from Massachusetts, in'this'suit,-is, “sovereignty and jurisdiction,” up to the boundary dine described -in her bill: And she dcsireifto establish.this line as the true boundary between the. states; for the purpose of showing that she is entitled to recover from Massachusetts the sovereignty and jurisdiction which Massachusetts now* ■holds over the territory in' question.'. Sovereignty ahd jurisdiction ate not ¡matters of property; for thb allegiance in the disputed territory cannot be. a matter of property. Rhode Island; therefore, sues for political rights. They .are the. only matters in controversy, arid the only things to be recovered¿ and if she succeeds in this .suit; she' .will recover political rights over .the territory in question, which are now withheld from her by Massachusetts'.-
Contests -for rights of Sovereignty and jurisdiction betweeft states over'any particular territory! are not; in my, judgment,'the subjects of judicial cognizance and control,- to be recovered and enforced in an ordinary suit ; and are, therefore", riot-within the grant of judicial power contained iri the constitution.
Iri the case of New York v. Connecticut, 4 Dallas, 4, in the note, Chief justice Ellswprth-says, “ To have the benefit of the agreement between the ¡states, the defendants below, who aré the settlers of New York, must apply'to a Court of equity, as well as the state'herself;' .but in no cáse can a specificperformahee be decreed, unless there is a substantial right of soil, not a mere right of political jurisdiction,'to be protected and enforced,”
In the case of The Cherokee Nation v. The State, of Georgia, 5 Peters, 20, Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering the opinion of the .Court, said: “ That part of the bill which respects the land occupied by the Indians, and prays the aid of the Court to protect their possession, may be more doubtful; The mere question of right might, perhaps, be decided by this Court, in .a'proper case, with'proper parties. But the Court is askéd to do more than decide on the title. The bill requires us to control the legislation of Georgia, and to restrain the exertion of its physical forcé. The propriety of such an *754interposition by the Court may be well questioned-. It savours too much of the exercise of political power to be Within the proper province of the judicial department. But the opinion oh the point respecting parties makes it unnecessary to decide this question.”
In the case before the. Court, We are called on. tp protect' and' enforce the “ mere political jurisdiction” bf, Rhode Island; and .the bill of the complainant, in effect, asks us‘to control- the legislature of Massachusetts, and to restrain the eXercisé of Its physical force” within the disputed'territpry. According to the opinions above referred to, these questions do. not belong to the judicial-.department. T-his construction of the constitution is, in my judgment,; the -. true one; and ,1 therefore think the proceedings in this case ought to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Mr. _ Justice Barbour said,' that- he concurred in the result’of the opinion in this case. That- this Court had jurisdiction 'to settle the disputed boundary'between the two states, litigant -before it. But' he wished to be understood, as not adopting all the reasoning-by .which the Court had arrived at its conclusion. - . .
Mr. Justice-Storv did not sit in this case.
On considerationuf the motion made by Mr,.Webster ion a-prior day of the present term of-this Court* to- wit, op Monday, the l-5th day of January, A. D.1838, to dismiss the-complainant’s bill- filed in this case for. want of jurisdiction, and of the arguments of counsel thereupon had; as well .in support-of, as against the said/motion: It. is noW here ordered and adjudged, by this Cohrt, that the. said motion, be,and the samé is hereby overruled;