and immunities of citizens of the several States.' And if it be a just principle, that every government ought to possess the means of executing its own provisions by its own authority, it will follow, that, in order to the inviolable maintenance of that equality of privileges and immunities, to which the citizens of the Union will be entitled, the National Judiciary ought to preside in all cases, in which one State, or its citizens, are opposed to another State, or its citizens. To secure the full effect of so fundamental a provision against all evasion and subterfuge, it is necessary, that its interpretation should be committed to that tribunal, which, having no local attachments, will be likely to be impartial between the different States and their citizens, and which, owing its official existence to the Union, will never be likely to feel any bias inauspicious to the principles, on which it is founded. It may be added, that the reasonableness of the agency of the National courts in cases, in which the State tribunals cannot be supposed to be impartial, speaks for it. No man ought certainly to be a judge in his own cause, or in any cause, in respect to which he has the least interest or bias. This principle had no inconsiderable weight in designating the national courts, as the proper tribunals for the determination of controversies between different States and their citizens.

§ 337. And here a most important question of a constitutional nature was formerly litigated; and that is, whether the jurisdiction, given by the Constitution, in cases, in which a State is a party, extended to suits brought against a State, as well as by it, or was exclusively confined to the latter. It is obvious, that, if a suit could be brought, by any citizen of one State against another State, upon any contract, or matter of property, the State would be constantly subjected to judicial action, to enforce private rights against it in its sovereign capacity. Accordingly, at a very early period, numerous suits were brought against particular States by their creditors, to enforce the payment of debts, or other claims. The question was made, and most elaborately considered, in the celebrated

Supreme Court held, that the judicial power, under the Constitution, applied equally to suits brought by, and suits brought against a State. All the learned judges, on that occasion, delivered opinions, containing the grounds of their respective judgements. It is not my intention to go over these grounds, although they are stated with great ability and legal learning, and exhibit a very thorough mastery of the whole subject. The decision created general alarm among the States; and an amendment was proposed, and ratified by the States, by which the power was entirely taken away, so far as it regards suits brought against a State. It is in the following words : "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law, or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States, by citizens of another State, or by citizens, or subjects of any foreign State." This amendment was construed to include suits then pending, as well as suits to be commenced thereafter; and, accordingly, all the suits then pending were dismissed, without any further adjudication.

§338. Since this amendment has been made, a question of equal importance has arisen; and that is, whether the amendment applies to original suits only, brought against a State, leaving the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in its full vigor over all constitutional questions, arising in the progress of any suit brought by a State, in any State court, against any private citizen or alien. But this question will more properly come under review, when we are considering the nature and extent of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. At present, it is only necessary to state, that it has been solemnly adjudged, that the amendment applies only to original suits against a State; and does not touch the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to re-examine, on an appeal or writ of error, a judgement or decree rendered in any State court, in a suit brought originally by a State against any private person.

§ 339. Another inquiry, suggested by the original clause, as well as by the amendment, is, when a State is

and immunities of citizens of the several States.' And if it be a just principle, that every government ought to possess the means of executing its own provisions by its own authority, it will follow, that, in order to the inviolable maintenance of that equality of privileges and immunities, to which the citizens of the Union will be entitled, the National Judiciary ought to preside in all cases, in which one State, or its citizens, are opposed to another State, or its citizens. To secure the full effect of so fundamental a provision against all evasion and subterfuge, it is necessary, that its interpretation should be committed to that tribunal, which, having no local attachments, will be likely to be impartial between the different States and their citizens, and which, owing its official existence to the Union, will never be likely to feel any bias inauspicious to the principles, on which it is founded. It may be added, that the reasonableness of the agency of the National courts in cases, in which the State tribunals cannot be supposed to be impartial, speaks for it. No man ought certainly to be a judge in his own cause, or in any cause, in respect to which he has the least interest or bias. This principle had no inconsiderable weight in designating the national courts, as the proper tribunals for the determination of controversies between different States and their citizens.

§ 337. And here a most important question of a constitutional nature was formerly litigated; and that is, whether the jurisdiction, given by the Constitution, in cases, in which a State is a party, extended to suits brought against a State, as well as by it, or was exclusively confined to the latter. It is obvious, that, if a suit could be brought, by any citizen of one State against another State, upon any contract, or matter of property, the State would be constantly subjected to judicial action, to enforce private rights against it in its sovereign capacity. Accordingly, at a very early period, numerous suits were brought against particular States by their creditors, to enforce the payment of debts, or other claims. The question was made, and most elaborately considered, in the celebrated

Supreme Court held, that the judicial power, under the Constitution, applied equally to suits brought by, and suits brought against a State. All the learned judges, on that occasion, delivered opinions, containing the grounds of their respective judgements. It is not my intention to go over these grounds, although they are stated with great ability and legal learning, and exhibit a very thorough mastery of the whole subject. The decision created general alarm among the States; and an amendment was proposed, and ratified by the States, by which the power was entirely taken away, so far as it regards suits brought against a State. It is in the following words: "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law, or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States, by citizens of another State, or by citizens, or subjects of any foreign State." This amendment was construed to include suits then pending, as well as suits to be commenced thereafter; and, accordingly, all the suits then pending were dismissed, without any further adjudication.

§ 338. Since this amendment has been made, a question of equal importance has arisen; and that is, whether the amendment applies to original suits only, brought against a State, leaving the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in its full vigor over all constitutional questions, arising in the progress of any suit brought by a State, in any State court, against any private citizen or alien. But this question will more properly come under review, when we are considering the nature and extent of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. present, it is only necessary to state, that it has been solemnly adjudged, that the amendment applies only to original suits against a State; and does not touch the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to re-examine, on an appeal or writ of error, a judgement or decree rendered in any State court, in a suit brought originally by a State against any private person.

At

§ 339. Another inquiry, suggested by the original clause, as well as by the amendment, is, when a State is

and immunities of citizens of the several States.' And if it be a just principle, that every government ought to possess the means of executing its own provisions by its own authority, it will follow, that, in order to the inviolable maintenance of that equality of privileges and immunities, to which the citizens of the Union will be entitled, the National Judiciary ought to preside in all cases, in which one State, or its citizens, are opposed to another State, or its citizens. To secure the full effect of so fundamental a provision against all evasion and subterfuge, it is necessary, that its interpretation should be committed to that tribunal, which, having no local attachments, will be likely to be impartial between the different States and their citizens, and which, owing its official existence to the Union, will never be likely to feel any bias inauspicious to the principles, on which it is founded. It may be added, that the reasonableness of the agency of the National courts in cases, in which the State tribunals cannot be supposed to be impartial, speaks for it. No man ought certainly to be a judge in his own cause, or in any cause, in respect to which he has the least interest or bias. This principle had no inconsiderable weight in designating the national courts, as the proper tribunals for the determination of controversies between different States and their citizens.

§ 337. And here a most important question of a constitutional nature was formerly litigated; and that is, whether the jurisdiction, given by the Constitution, in cases, in which a State is a party, extended to suits brought against a State, as well as by it, or was exclusively confined to the latter. It is obvious, that, if a suit could be brought, by any citizen of one State against another State, upon any contract, or matter of property, the State would be constantly subjected to judicial action, to enforce private rights against it in its sovereign capacity. Accordingly, at a very early period, numerous suits were brought against particular States by their creditors, to enforce the payment of debts, or other claims. The question was made, and most elaborately considered, in the celebrated