sion, delivered seriatim opinions, containing the grounds of their respective opinions. It is not my intention to go over these grounds, though they are stated with great ability and legal learning, and exhibit a very thorough mastery of the whole subject.[1] The decision created general alarm among the states; and an amendment was proposed, and ratified by the states,[2] 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.[3]
- ↑ Although the controversy is now ended, the opinions deserve a most attentive perusal, from their very able exposition of many constitutional principles. It is remarkable, that The Federalist (No. 81,) seems to have taken the opposite ground from the majority of the judges, holding, that the states were not suable, but might themselves sue under this clause of the constitution.[a 1] I confess it seems to me difficult to reconcile this position with the reasoning on the same subject in the preceding number, (80,) a part of which is quoted in the text, (§ 1676.) Mr. Justice Iredell, who dissented from the other judges of the Supreme Court, in Chisholm v. Georgia, put his opinion mainly on the ground, that it was a suit for a debt, tor which no action lay, at least compulsively, at the common law against the crown, but at most, only a petition of right; and in America, whoever contracts with a state trusts to the good faith of the state.
- ↑ In 1793; 3 Dall. R. 378.
- ↑ Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall. R. 378.—The history and reasons of this amendment are succinctly stated by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. R. 406.
- ↑ See also 2 Elliot's Deb. 390, 391, 401, 405.
