CH. XXXVIII.]
JUDICIARY—JURISDICTION.
581
construction of the whole article, so as to give every part its intended effect. It is admitted, that "affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects, than those affirmed;" and that where "a negative or exclusive sense, must be given to them, or they have no operation at all," they must receive that negative, or exclusive sense. But where they have full operation without it; where it would destroy some of the most important objects, for which the power was created; then, we think, affirmative words ought not to be construed negatively.
The constitution declares, that in cases, where a state is a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction; but does not say, that its appellate jurisdiction shall not be exercised in cases, w here, from their nature, appellate jurisdiction is given, whether a state be, or be not a party.[1] It may be conceded, that where the case is of such a nature, as to admit of its originating in the Supreme Court, it ought to originate there; but where, from its nature, it cannot originate in that court, these words ought not to be so construed, as to require it. There are many cases, in which it would be found extremely difficult, and subversive of the spirit of the constitution, to maintain the construction, that appellate jurisdiction cannot be exercised, where one of the parties might sue, or be sued in this court. The constitution defines the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but does not define that of the inferior courts. Can it be affirmed, that a state might not sue the citizen of another state in a Circuit Court? Should the Circuit Court decide for, or against its jurisdiction, should it dismiss the suit, or give judgment
- ↑ See 9 Wheat. R. 820, 821.
