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
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Independent Chronicle, April 4, 1793.
