Page:The Supreme Court in United States History vol 1.djvu/122

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
96
THE SUPREME COURT


The decision fell upon the country with a profound shock. Both the Bar and the public in general appeared entirely unprepared for the doctrine upheld by the Court; and their surprise was warranted, when they recalled the fact that the vesting of any such jurisdiction over sovereign States had been expressly disclaimed and even resented by the great defenders of the Constitution, during the days of the contest over its adoption. Some of the ultra-Federalists now upheld the decision of the Court, which, they said, "fixes a most material and rational feature in the Judiciary of the United States that every individual of any State has the natural privilege of suing either the United States, or any State whatsoever in the Union, for redress in all cases where he can present a just claim, a loss or an injury."[1] Many others of the Federalist Party and practically the entire body of Anti-Federalists were excitedly opposed to the "extraordinary determination" enounced by the Court. "Its novelty," said a Boston newspaper, "is not less striking than the importance of the consequences which may result from an acquiescence in this stride of authority. . . . When the persons in opposition to the acceptance of the new Constitution hinged on the Article respecting the power of the Judiciary Department being so very extensive and alarming as to comprehend even the State itself as a party to an action of debt, this was denied peremptorily by the Federalists as an absurdity in terms. But it is now said that the eloquent and profound reasoning of the Chief Justice has made that to be right which was, at first, doubtful or improper."[2] Another newspaper

  1. Philadelphia dispatch to Connecticut Courant, Feb. 25, 1798; American Daily Advertiser, Feb. 19, 1798; Providence Gazette, March 2, 1793. See also letter from "Solon" in Independent Chronide, Sept. 19, 1798, stating that individual citizens ought to have their rights protected and be as able to sue a State as any other corporation.
  2. Independent Chronicle, April 4, 1793.