Court Opinion

ID: 9841649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 20:00:27.875394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:49.824909
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY.
This case came before the court in 1838, upon a motion to'dismiss the bill for want of jurisdiction ; and that question was then very elaborately argued at the bar, and carefully considered by the court. Upon that argument, and upon full consideration, I came to the conclusion that the coert had not jurisdiction over the subject-matter in controversy,. and my opinion to that effect, with a very brief statement of the principles upon which it was founded, is reported in 12 Peters, 752 ; wherein I have intimated, that at the final hearing of the case I should examine more fully the grounds upon which jurisdiction was asserted in the opinion from which I dissented.
As the case was legally in court under this decision, it became my duty from time to time to take part in the interlocutory proceedings which were necessary to prepare attd conduct the cáse to final hearing. But, .after many unavoidable delays, it has reached that point; and we are now to determine whether Rhode Island is in this court entitled to the relief she asks for. Entertaining upon this subject the opinion heretofore expressed, and which has been confirmed by subsequent reflection, I think she is not; and-that this court have no constitutional power to decide the question in dispute *640between the States,, and consequently that the bill ought to be dismissed. ... J
I concur, therefore, in the decree just pronounced, and as I do not dissent from the. decree, fy is. unnecessary to state more fully than I have heretofore, done- tny objection to the doctrines upon which jurisdiction was maintained.
Deciding the case, so far as J. am concerned, upon this point, I of course express no opinion upon the merits of. the controversy ; and have not even deemed it necessary tobe present at the elaborate arguments upon the evidence which, have been made at the present term. For if Rhode Island had proved herself to be justly and clearly entitled to exercise sovereignty and dominion over the territory in question, and the people who inhabit it, yet my judgment must still haVeheen, that the.bill should be dismissed, upon the ground that this court,-under the Constitution of the United States, have not the" power to try such a question between States, or redress such a wrong, even if the wrong is proved to have been done.