several States have relinquished all their Sovereignties^
and have become mere corporations, upon the establish-
ment of the National Government; for a sovereign
State can never be sued or coerced by the authority of
another government. Should this point be supported
in favour of this cause against Maryland, each State in
' the Union may be sued by the possessors of their public
securities and by all their creditors. As the executions
will be against them as mere corporations, they will be
issued against all the inhabitants generally; the Govr
emour and all other citizens will be alike liable. Such
offices will not be coveted. Even the constitutional
privileges in the several States against arresting Senators
and Representatives while the Courts are sitting,
will be done away with." The issue came squarely
before the Court in a suit brought at the August,
1792, Term by two citizens of South Carolina, executors
of a British creditor, against the State of Georgia,
Chisholm v. Oeorgia^ i Dallas, 419. A motion was
made on August 11 by Attorney-General Edmimd
Randolph, as coimsel for the plaintiff, that imless the
State should enter its appearance at the next Term,
a judgment should be entered against it.^ The Court,
however, was anxious "to avoid every appearance of
precipitancy and to giye the State time to deliberate
on the measures she ought to adopt", and consequently
- In Marshall, III, ti5^t note 2» 582, it is stated that Chisholm v. Georgia involved
Yaxoo land grants; this is a mistake, it was the case of MouUriev, Oeorgiot filed in 1796, which involved such grants. Dallas in his Reports does not state the circumstances under which the ChUholm Case arose. Th^ were as follows (see Philadelphia dispatch in Salem Oazette, March 6, 1793) : " A citizen of Georgia had left America prior to the Revolution and removed to Great Britain, after settling a partnership account with two part- ners in trade whose bonds he took for the balance due. After his decease, his exec- ute's (who were citizens of South Carolina) on making application for payment found that these two persons who had given their joint bonds had been inimical to the cause of liberty in the United States and that their property was confis- cated. The executors, alleging that the bond was given previous to the Revolu- Uon* applied to the State of Georgia for relief."
