782 Uilliam B. Dodd tickets in 'irginia by the agents of a company organized under the laws of the District of Columbia; (2) whether an agent of such corporation could appeal from an adverse decision of the state courts to the United States courts, a state being a party to the suit. 'irginia had made the selling of lottery tickets a misdemeanor punishable with a fine of a hundred dollars for each offense. But under a recent act of Congress the District of Columbia had licensed a lottery which was expected, of course, to do business in 'ir- ginia and Maryland. Venders of tickets in Norfolk were arrested and tried before the borough court and fined $100 each. Xo appeal was taken to the General Court in Richmond, which might have reviewed the case ; but a writ of error was allowed by the local court, without objection from the state's counsel, and the contro- versy went to the United States Supreme Court. The state of Virginia now became the defendant in the national court. Though the evidence on this point is not quite conclusive, it is pretty clear that the state's counsel had made no objection to the appeal, think- ing it an excellent opportunity to test the question whether a state could be haled into the United States Court. Philip P. Barbour and other able attorneys were engaged by the state of Mrginia. They pleaded want of jurisdiction in the trial which followed. Marshall ruled that the fine laid by the Norfolk court must be paid, not because the law of Virginia held as against an agent of a corporation chartered by Congress, but because it had not been intended to force the business of the lottery company into states having laws to the contrary, Congress not having purposely acted on this point. The second and main question, whether the court had jurisdic- tion, Marshall decided in the affirmative, declaring that all parties to suits in which the constitution, laws or treaties of the nation were involved or in which rights claimed under them were denied, might appeal from any state court ,to the United States Supreme Court, and that the incident of a state's being, a party to the liti- gation did not effect the case.^ Roane and his party were stronger now than ever before. After an understanding, it would seem, as to who should lead the fight, the Virginia chief justice began on May 25 the publication under the pen-name of " Algernon Sidney " of his most famous series of articles against Judge ^larshall. They constitute a commentary on the national constitution from the standpoint of states" rights. Roane could not deal calmly with his subject. His language ' 6 Wheaton, .264.
