Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/442

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.


Q6 Cases ruled and adjudged in the 1793- fuhje8s of controverfy, and the Legillature of the Unfit} State: '*'*‘-’ may pafs all laws neceB`ary to give fuch judicial Authority its proper ef}`e&. So far as States under the Conllitution can he made legally liable to this authority, fo far to be fure they are fubordinate to the authorit of the United Starts, and their in- dividual fovereiguty is in this refpcé} limited. But it is limit- cd no farther than the neceifary execution of fuch authority re- quires. The authority extends only to the decilion of contro- rciéics in which a State is a party. and providing laws necell'ary for zhat urpofe. That furely can refer only to fuch controver- Ees in trliich a State can he a party ; in refpcil to which, if any queilion arifes, it can be determined, according to the princi- ples lhave fupported, in noother manner than hy a reference either to proexittent laws, or laws pailcd under the Couititution and in conformity to it. ` Vhaterer he the true conflruflion of the Conllitution in this particular ; whether it is to be oonllrued as intending merc- ly a transfer of jurifdiclion from one tribunal to another, or as authoriling the Legiflature to provide laws for the decifion of ail poiiible controverlies in which a State may be involved with an individual, without regard to any prior exemption ; yet it is cer- tain that the Legiflature has in fat',} proceeded upon the former fuppoliticn, and not upon the latter. For, belides what Ino- ticrd before as toan exprefs reference to principles and ufages ef law as the guide of our proceeding, it is obfervahle that in inllances like this before the Court, this Court hath a centur- mt: j&rgGIiE£m only ; ;he prefent being one of thofe cafes where by the judicial aft this Court hath original but not txtlq/iw ju-. riliiiélion. This Court, therefore, under that a&, can cxercifo no authority in fuch inltauces, but fuch authority as from the fubjeél matter of it may be exercifed in fome other Court.-- '1`here are no Courts with which fuch a concurrence can he fug— geited hut the Circuit Courts, or Courts of the different States. With the former it cannot be, for admitting that the Conltitu- tion is not to have a rcllriftive operation, fo as to confine all cafes in which a State is a party exclulively to the Supreme Court (an opinion to which I am ilrongly inclined), yet there are no words in the definition of the powers of the Circuit Court which give a colour to an opinion, that where a fuit is brought againfl: a State by a citizen of another State, the Circuit Court could exercife auyjurifdiétion at all. If they could, however, fuch a jurifdiétion, by the very terms of their authority, could he only concurrent with the Courts of the fevcral States. It follows, therefore, unqueltionably, I think, that looking at the acl: of Congrg/Ir, which Iconlider is on this occalion the limit of our authority (whatever further might be conllitutionaly, qnaéled) we can exercife no authority in the prefcnt in_ll‘ance