Chapter X: The France-America Committee of New York 261 (3)

Not only are the decisions of the courts constantly distorted and misrepresented, but the people are also being taught that the courts have usurped the power to declare void any statute in conflict with the constitution, and that no such power was ever intended to be conferred by the framers of national or state constitutions. Surely by this time it ought to be manifest that if the courts may not adjudge invalid and refuse to give force and effect to unconstitutional enactments, it is of little or no use to declare in constitutions that legislatures shall not pass bills of attainder, or ex post facto laws, or laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or denying the right to trial by jury, or imprisoning without trial, or suspending the writ of habeas corpus, or confiscating private property.

Speaking on this subject of judicial power and duty, Hamilton in the "Federalist" used language which cannot be too often repeated. He clearly showed that in 1788 it was understood and contemplated that the courts should exercise the power to adjudge invalid any statute which was in conflict with the Constitution. In fact, such power had then already been exercised by state courts. He said that constitutional limitations "can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservation of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.... There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.... The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute; the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental."[19]

Equally conclusive and equally worthy of constant repetition is the reasoning of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury _vs._ Madison, where he said: "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limitations may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act. Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable."[20]

This decision of the Supreme Court to the effect that it is the duty and within the power of the courts to construe constitutions and to refuse to enforce unconstitutional enactments was rendered in 1803. Yet, notwithstanding that the Constitution of the United States has been amended four times since that decision, and that every state constitution has been again and again remodeled or amended, no American constitution has ever denied to the courts the power to construe constitutions or the duty to refuse to enforce statutes which are in conflict with constitutional limitations. If the power to declare void any statute in conflict with the Constitution of the United States was deemed necessary in 1788 when Hamilton was writing his famous essays, it certainly ought to be far more necessary in our day of multiform legislation, vast increase in the functions of the state, and incompetent, reckless and oppressive class legislation interfering in almost every conceivable manner with the rights and liberties of the individual.

Moreover, the Constitution of the United States would probably never have been adopted if the people had understood, as is now pretended, that Congress was to be at liberty to disregard constitutional limitations and guaranties and that there would be no way whatever of preventing a violation by Congress of the constitutional rights of the individual except at the polls. All students of our history know that the Constitution was accepted by the people upon the distinct pledge that amendments embodying a bill of rights to protect the individual against Congress would be immediately adopted. And one of the first acts of the First Congress in September, 1789, was to submit the ten amendments known as the federal bill of rights, which were thereupon ratified by the states and became an integral part of the Constitution. But of what avail or benefit were these amendments if Congress was not to be effectively restrained and bound by them? It is no exaggeration to say that if the courts should now be deprived of the power to protect litigants who invoke constitutional guaranties and should be compelled to enforce, as valid laws, statutes which violate the limitations upon legislative power which the people have deliberately embodied in their fundamental law, our constitutions would become dead letters, and we might as well turn to the pure and unrestrained democracy of Greece and await her fate.

In an inspiring address delivered this year before the New York State Bar Association on the subject of judicial decisions and public feeling, Senator Root eloquently said: "A sovereign people which declares that all men have certain inalienable rights, and imposes upon itself the great impersonal rules of conduct deemed necessary for the preservation of those rights, and at the same time declares that it will disregard those rules whenever, in any particular case, it is the wish of a majority of its voters to do so, establishes as complete a contradiction to the fundamental principles of our government as it is possible to conceive. It abandons absolutely the conception of a justice which is above majorities, of a right in the weak which the strong are bound to respect. It denies the vital truth taught by religion and realized in the hard experience of mankind, and which has inspired every constitution America has produced and every great declaration for human freedom since Magna Carta--the truth that human nature needs to distrust its own impulses and passions, and to establish for its own control the restraining and guiding influence of declared principles of action."

In many of the current assaults upon the judicial department, in support often of schemes having their birthplace on the continent of Europe, we find the complaint that in declaring statutes unconstitutional the courts in this country--state and federal--exercise greater power than the courts of other countries are authorized to exercise. As if that were an argument against American institutions! Every schoolboy knows that the framers intended that our government should differ from every other government in the world. The founders not only intentionally departed from the examples of existing governments, but anxiously sought to establish a new form of republican government, which would perpetuate the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, secure the inalienable rights of the individual, and protect the minority against the oppression or tyranny of the majority. It was because these rights of the individual against majorities and every form of governmental power were to be made secure and sacred, as the founders believed, that we were to differ from other governments. And the essential and effective feature of that difference was to lie in the power vested in the judicial department to uphold and protect these rights. High sounding declarations of the rights of man would mean very little if they were not to be enforceable by the courts.

When our form of government is compared with that of other countries, and we are told that in England or in France or elsewhere so-called progressive measures have been forced into immediate operation by the will of the majority, and that the courts there were powerless to interfere, is it seriously intended to suggest to the people of the United States that they should, therefore, cast aside all constitutional restraints, all their ancient and honest constitutional principles, and leave the protection of life, liberty and property wholly in the hands of the legislative branch? Are there not still certain rights which even those who are assailing our institutions, under the protection of the very Constitution they deride, would want to have protected by our courts? When it is urged that the courts should not have power to declare an act unconstitutional, but should be compelled to enforce all legislative enactments although some of them might conflict with the Constitution, is it realized that the bill of rights would then be left to the arbitrary discretion or caprice of the legislature, and that consequently it would be of no more practical protection to the individual than the paper constitutions of some of the South American republics which, too, contain eloquent declarations of the rights of the individual? Is it forgotten or overlooked that in England and France and all the other countries with whose systems of government ours is being compared, the legislative power is practically supreme, and that it can outlaw or disseize or imprison at its mere will--that it can deny religious liberty, abridge the freedom of speech or of the press, pass bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, suspend the writ of habeas corpus, impose cruel and unusual punishments, deny to the individual accused of crime the right to a jury-trial or even any hearing at all, confiscate private property without compensation, and impair the obligation of contracts?

Let us, for example, suppose that Congress or a state legislature saw fit to imprison those who did not profess the religion of the majority, or observe its forms and tenets. Who could then protect the minority against such tyrannical enactments except the courts, and how could the courts shield them save by declaring the statute unconstitutional and void and refusing to enforce it? We have only to go back a few generations to find just such laws in England and in the American colonies, and it is the repetition of them that our constitutions seek to prevent. Suppose again that Congress or a state legislature should pass a statute abridging the freedom of speech or of the press and making those who violated the statute subject to criminal prosecution and imprisonment. How could the individual be then protected except by the judiciary, and how could the judiciary protect him unless by exercising the power to declare the statute unconstitutional?

Do the agitators who are attacking our constitutional system explain to their listeners that in the foreign governments with which they are making comparisons the legislative power could compel workmen in any trade to work as many hours a day, at such rates of wages, and under such conditions as the majority saw fit to enact? Suppose that the Pennsylvania legislature should pass a statute compelling laborers in coal mines to labor twelve or more hours a day for a compensation fixed by it and providing that refusal should constitute a crime. Or similarly in the case of railroad employees. In doing so, the legislature would find a precedent in the famous English Statute of Labourers as well as in numerous other European enactments. The Pennsylvania legislature might pass an act, similar to that enacted by the British parliament in 1720 and again in 1800, making it a crime for laborers to combine to obtain an advance of wages or to lessen or alter their hours of work. Is it inconceivable that the time may come when the majority of the voters in Pennsylvania will believe that it is imperative thus to regulate labor in coal mines and on the railroads, both of which industries are indispensable, serve every household in the state, affect every individual, rich or poor, and compel all to pay tribute? Might not prejudice and self-interest tempt or impel to such a statute, and might not the majority enact it, particularly if those affected were aliens without political power? Is it inconceivable that the owners of the coal mines and the railroads may some day control a majority in the legislature? But how could these miners and railroad employees be protected from such enactments and criminal prosecutions thereunder unless the courts had the power to declare statutes unconstitutional and to refuse to enforce them because depriving the individual of his constitutional rights?

In nine cases out of ten the answer to these suggestions by those who to-day are assailing the judicial department would undoubtedly be that no one intends to go to any such extreme, and that no one wishes to be placed or to place any one else entirely at the mercy of the legislature. Thus, they would concede that some rights should still be safeguarded by the courts. But does not this answer contain the gist of the whole problem and the whole principle and virtue of the American system of constitutional restraints? If the critics of our system would have some rights, and particularly their own, protected by the courts, must they not then confess that in truth they only wish changes where the rights of others are concerned, and that they would cling to the Constitution and invoke the protection of the judicial power in all those respects in which their own personal liberty and their own personal and property rights are affected? Chief Judge Cullen of the New York Court of Appeals recently said that "the great misfortune of the day is the mania for regulating all human conduct by statute, from responsibility for which few are exempt, since many of our most intelligent and highly educated citizens, who resent as paternalism and socialism legislative interference with affairs in which they are interested, are most persistent in the attempt to regulate by law the conduct of others."[21]

I do not doubt that if we could have an exhaustive debate before a great tribunal of American public opinion and could step by step analyze and sift the arguments against the judicial power in constitutional cases, we would find in the final analysis that those who are so fiercely charging the courts with usurping power by refusing to enforce unconstitutional enactments would still want the continued protection of the courts so far as their own constitutional rights and liberties were concerned, and that they were only asking modification and curtailment in respect of the rights and liberties of others. I am confident that if it were left to the people of the United States to determine by their votes the simple question whether they would place in the hands of Congress or of their state legislatures the fundamental, elemental, inalienable rights which every American citizen now enjoys--the inalienable rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence--an overwhelming vote would be cast against any such change. Indeed, support for this conviction may be found in the recent experience of Australia, that hotbed of radicalism. An attempt by constitutional amendment to curtail the power of the judiciary in labor controversies and to confer upon the Australian parliament all power necessary to deal with labor matters was there the subject of a referendum and met with a decisive defeat at the polls. Are we likely to be less conservative than the Australians, or to be less mindful of the necessity for wise constitutional guaranties and restraints?

The truth is that our constitutions, national and state, do not stand in the way of any fair and just exercise of what is called the police power, or of measures for social progress or social justice, and that they do not prevent reasonable and just regulations tending to secure the health and promote the welfare of the community at large, or the enactment of proper and reasonable factory laws or proper and reasonable workmen's compensation acts. The main source of trouble is that the statutes which the courts are compelled to refuse to enforce are very often hastily and crudely drawn, and are often inherently unreasonable and unjust.

But, even if this be not so; even if the people, after full statement of the facts and thorough explanation of the effect of the change, upon mature consideration desire to vest greater power in our legislatures, or to curtail the power of the courts, the means are within their reach. In New York and in other states, the Constitution can be easily amended within two years.

It has been repeatedly asserted that the Constitution of the United States has become practically unamendable, when as a matter of fact its amendment does not involve any greater difficulties than were intended or than would seem reasonably necessary, or than would be provided if we were now framing a new national constitution. The prescribed machinery of a vote by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states simply compels deliberation and prevents hasty and unconsidered action. If the people of the country really desire a particular amendment to the Constitution of the United States, it ought to be readily obtainable within less than two years.

Thus, the first ten amendments were proposed by Congress in September, 1789, and were adopted in those days of slow travel and difficult communication by eight states within six months and by the requisite three-fourths within two years. The twelfth amendment, proposed in 1803, was ratified in nine months. The thirteenth amendment, proposed by Congress in 1865, was ratified by the legislatures of twenty-seven out of the then thirty-six states within ten months; and the fifteenth amendment, the latest, proposed in February, 1869, was ratified by twenty-nine out of the thirty-seven states within one year. The delay in the adoption of the proposed sixteenth amendment authorizing Congress to levy an income tax is due wholly to the fact that there is a serious difference of opinion as to whether or not this power should be conferred, although the advocates of the amendment confidently proclaimed the existence of an almost universal desire on the part of the people for such an amendment to the Constitution.[22]

One of the most insidious suggestions that can possibly be made to the people at large is that there is an insurmountable difficulty in securing amendments to our constitutions, just as misleading and dangerous as it is for them to be told that their desires are being thwarted by the judiciary and that they must accomplish reforms either by coercing the courts or by undermining the foundations of their constitutions. The future contentment of the people requires that they shall feel that the governments, state and federal, are their governments, that they themselves are ultimately the sovereign power, and that they are at liberty to amend the organic law from time to time as their mature and deliberate judgment shall deem necessary or desirable. All that the conservatives can ask or do ask is that the people shall act deliberately and under circumstances calculated to afford time and opportunity for full explanation and a full understanding of the scope and tendency of the proposed changes, to the end that errors may be discovered and exposed, that theorizing, sentimentalism, clamor and prejudice may exhaust themselves, and that the sober second thought of every part of the country may be asserted. If it be then determined to amend our constitutions, even to the extent of placing life, liberty and property at the unrestrained discretion and mercy of our legislators, the will of the sovereign people will have to be obeyed. Let us hope and pray, however, that when amendments are adopted, they will be conservative and wise, that the rights of the minority as against the majority will not be heedlessly sacrificed for the temporary advantage of one class over another, and that it will be appreciated that individual liberty should be the vital concern of every man, rich or poor, as being essential to the perpetuation of the institutions which we cherish as peculiarly and preeminently American. Let us especially try to avoid permitting any class to make use of constitutional amendments or of statutory enactments for its own special purposes. Let us, whilst meeting in full sympathy, generosity and charity the legitimate demands of the laboring classes and of the poor and humble, nevertheless keep our eyes open to prevent any such vicious results as would arise from constitutional or statutory provisions framed nominally for the benefit of labor but really for the purpose of serving the interests of a particular class against another, as we have seen was the case in the New York tenement-house legislation of 1884. In the meantime, pending such amendments in the due, orderly and reasonable course prescribed by our constitutions, let us be faithful and devoted to our constitutional system, which for more than a century has carried us through every storm and so often "in spite of false lights on the shore." Let us also be truthful and fair and, if possible, temperate in our criticism of all public officials, whether legislative, executive, or judicial.

Finally, a word about the special duty of our profession. It is not the pulpit nor the press, but the law which reaches and touches every fibre of the whole fabric of life, which surrounds and guards every right of the individual, which grasps the greatest and the least of human affairs, and which comprehends the whole community and every human right. We lawyers, if worthy of our profession, are in duty bound not merely to defend constitutional guaranties before the courts for individual clients, but to teach the people in season and out of season to value and respect the constitutional rights of others and to respect and cherish the institutions which we have inherited. It is our duty to preach constitutional morality to the rich and to the poor, to all trades and to all professions, to all ranks and to all classes, in the cities and on the plains. It is for us to convince the members of every class that, in the long run, disregard of the fundamental rights of others would be in conflict with their own permanent welfare and happiness, and cannot be permitted if we are to remain a free people. What higher duty, what nobler task could engage us than to teach the value and sacredness of the ancient and honest principles of justice embodied in our constitutions, immortal as the eternal truths from which they derive their origin, and to preach to all classes the virtue of political justice and self-imposed political restraints, without which there can be no true constitutional morality.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 10: Address before the Pennsylvania State Bar Association at its eighteenth annual meeting, held at Cape May, New Jersey, June 25, 1912.]

[Footnote 11: 188 United States Reports, p. 375.]

[Footnote 12: 98 New York Reports, p. 98.]

[Footnote 13: 33 Hun's Reports, pp. 380, 382, 383.]

[Footnote 14: 177 New York Reports, p. 145; 198 United States Reports, p. 45.]

[Footnote 15: 169 United States Reports, p. 366.]

[Footnote 16: 207 United States Reports, p. 463.]

[Footnote 17: 223 United States Reports, p. 1.]

[Footnote 18: 201 New York Reports, p. 271.]

[Footnote 19: The Federalist, Ford's edition, pp. 520, 521, 522.]

[Footnote 20: 1 Cranch's Reports, pp. 176-177.]

[Footnote 21: 204 New York Reports, p. 534.]

[Footnote 22: Since this address was delivered, the sixteenth amendment has been ratified. It was proposed by Congress July 16, 1909, and declared effective February 25, 1913. The seventeenth amendment was proposed by Congress May 15, 1912, and declared effective May 31, 1913. In view of this demonstration, it should certainly not be any longer urged that the Constitution of the United States is practically unamendable.]

THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT[23]

Of the important questions of constitutional law now before the country, none more vitally affects the peace and harmony of our dual system of government than that of the power of a federal court to enjoin a state officer from enforcing the provisions of a state statute which is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States. This question usually arises in connection with the eleventh article of amendment, which provides that "the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state." Serious controversies regarding the issuance of injunctions by federal courts against state officers have arisen in New York, North Carolina, Alabama, Missouri, Kansas, Minnesota, and other states. A convention of attorneys-general from a number of states, held at St. Louis in September and October, 1907, adopted a memorial to the President and Congress praying that the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States might be curtailed in respect of suits brought to restrain state officers from enforcing state laws or the orders of state administrative boards. The President in his annual message to Congress called the matter to the attention of that body, and stated that discontent was often expressed with the use of the process of injunction by the courts where state laws were concerned. The assembling of Congress was marked by the introduction of numerous bills to curtail the power of the federal courts to issue injunctions and by the offering of several joint resolutions to amend the Constitution of the United States, which had the same object. The question will, perhaps, figure prominently in the next presidential campaign. It may, therefore, be appropriate to review at this time the history of the eleventh article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States in order to see what light that history throws upon the purpose of its framers. Did they intend, in prohibiting suits by an individual against a state, to deny to the courts of the United States the power to enjoin a state officer from enforcing a state statute in conflict with the Constitution of the United States?

In 1787 and 1788, when the adoption of the Constitution was under consideration by the people of the United States, conflicting views were entertained as to the suability of a state by an individual for the recovery of claims against it. Hamilton, Madison and Marshall expressed the opinion that a state would not be suable by an individual under the Constitution as drafted. A number of prominent men, conspicuous among whom were Edmund Pendleton, Patrick Henry and George Mason, were of opinion that the language of the judicial clause conferred jurisdiction to entertain and determine such a suit. Some urged this as an objection to the Constitution. Others, including James Wilson of Pennsylvania and Edmund Randolph of Virginia, two of the most distinguished lawyers and publicists of the day and members of the Constitutional Convention, contended not only that jurisdiction was conferred but that it was wise and necessary that such jurisdiction should exist. Wilson urged that "when a citizen has a controversy with another state, there ought to be a tribunal where both parties may stand on a just and equal footing," and Randolph argued that the jurisdiction would tend "to render valid and effective existing claims, and secure that justice, ultimately, which is to be found in every regular government." The Constitution of the United States was adopted as submitted with the understanding that amendments would be promptly proposed. The First Congress submitted twelve amendments, ten of which were adopted, but the suability of a state was not mentioned in any of them.

The question was presented for judicial decision in 1792 in an action brought by Chisholm, a citizen of the state of South Carolina, against the state of Georgia in the Supreme Court of the United States under its original jurisdiction.[24] The action was in assumpsit to recover a debt. The court then consisted of Chief Justice Jay and Justices Cushing, Wilson, Blair, Johnson and Iredell. On February 18, 1793, the court held, Mr. Justice Iredell alone dissenting, that under the Constitution as originally adopted a state could be sued in that court by a citizen of another state in an action of assumpsit to enforce the payment of a contract debt. This decision, which was followed by the commencement of the suit of Vassal _vs._ Massachusetts, created irritation and alarm among the states, and particularly among those which were heavily burdened with debt. The anti-Federalist prints were loud in invectives against the decision, which was termed a violation of the sovereignty of the states, and it was declared that the people were "called upon to draw their swords against this invasion of their rights." It has been said, though with some exaggeration, that "the states fairly rose in rebellion against the decision." Four states formally protested. Although Georgia had been the first state to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it nevertheless refused to appear in the Chisholm suit, and filed a remonstrance and protestation against the exercise of jurisdiction. After the decision, it openly defied the authority of the national judiciary. Indeed, it is stated by McMaster, Cooley and other writers that the legislature of Georgia at once passed a law subjecting to death without benefit of clergy any officer who should attempt to serve a process in any suit against the state, but no record of any such statute can be found. Probably, as some one has suggested, the supposed law was a bill which passed only the lower branch of the legislature. At all events, the legislatures of Virginia, Massachusetts and Connecticut instructed their senators and representatives to secure the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution which should prevent suits against a state by an individual.

On February 20, 1793, two days after the opinions in Chisholm _vs._ Georgia were delivered, a resolution was offered in the United States Senate proposing an amendment of the Constitution in the following terms: "The judicial power of the United States shall not extend to any suits in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state."

The proposed amendment was debated to some extent in the Second Congress, but it was not passed. In the Third Congress, on January 2, 1794, Caleb Strong, one of the senators from Massachusetts, moved the adoption of a resolution which changed the form of the proposed amendment so as to read as follows: "The judicial power of the United States shall not _be construed to_ extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state."

The amendment was finally accepted in this form on March 4, 1794, and was at once submitted to the legislatures of the several states for ratification, but up to March, 1797, there were still eight states which had not acted upon it, probably because the political clamor had subsided, and there was no longer any demand for amendment. In fact, Congress had to request the President to communicate with the outstanding states upon the subject. Finally, in a message from President Adams to Congress dated January 8, 1798, the proposed amendment was declared to have been ratified by three-fourths of the states, and it thereupon became the eleventh article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States. New Jersey and Pennsylvania had refused to ratify it, while South Carolina and Tennessee had taken no action.

The unusual and peculiar wording of the amendment first attracts attention. Instead of declaring how the Constitution shall read in the future, it declares how it shall "not be construed." This phraseology was used for political reasons and as a concession to the susceptibilities of the advocates of state rights. Extremists wanted a declaration that would not only overrule the recent construction of the Constitution by the Supreme Court and deny that such a power had ever existed, but would also oust all jurisdiction in pending as well as in future cases. The amendment, therefore, does not purport to amend or alter the Constitution, but to maintain it unchanged, while controlling its scope and effect by authoritatively declaring how it shall not be construed.

Speaking of the language of the amendment, Chief Justice Marshall said in the case of Cohens _vs._ Virginia: "It is a part of our history, that, at the adoption of the Constitution, all the states were greatly indebted; and the apprehension that these debts might be prosecuted in the federal courts formed a very serious objection to that instrument. Suits were instituted, and the court maintained its jurisdiction. The alarm was general; and, to quiet the apprehensions that were so extensively entertained, this amendment was proposed in Congress, and adopted by the state legislatures. That its motive was not to maintain the sovereignty of a state from the degradation supposed to attend a compulsory appearance before the tribunal of the nation, may be inferred from the terms of the amendment. It does not comprehend controversies between two or more states, or between a state and a foreign state. The jurisdiction of the court still extends to these cases: and in these a state may still be sued. We must ascribe the amendment, then, to some other cause than the dignity of a state. There is no difficulty in finding this cause. Those who were inhibited from commencing a suit against a state, or from prosecuting one which might be commenced before the adoption of the amendment, were persons who might probably be its creditors. There was not much reason to fear that foreign or sister states would be creditors to any considerable amount, and there was reason to retain the jurisdiction of the court in those cases, because it might be essential to the preservation of peace. The amendment, therefore, extended to suits commenced or prosecuted by individuals, but not to those brought by states.

"The first impression made on the mind by this amendment is, that it was intended for those cases, and for those only, in which some demand against a state is made by an individual in the courts of the Union. If we consider the causes to which it is to be traced, we are conducted to the same conclusion. A general interest might well be felt in leaving to a state the full power of consulting its convenience in the adjustment of its debts or of other claims upon it; but no interest could be felt in so changing the relations between the whole and its parts, as to strip the government of the means of protecting, by the instrumentality of its courts, the Constitution and laws from active violation."[25]

It will also be observed that the amendment does not refer to suits against a state by one of its own citizens. This was undoubtedly because the Constitution did not extend the judicial power of the United States, when dependent upon the character of the parties, to controversies between a state and its own citizens, but only to controversies between a state and citizens of another state or citizens or subjects of foreign states. The distinction between jurisdiction dependent upon the nature or subject matter of the controversy irrespective of the character of the parties, such as cases arising under the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States, and jurisdiction dependent upon the character of the parties irrespective of the nature or subject matter of the controversy, had probably not then been as clearly recognized as was subsequently done by Chief Justice Marshall. The failure of the eleventh amendment to mention suits against a state by its own citizens gave rise nearly one hundred years later to the contention that a state could be sued in a circuit court of the United States by one of its own citizens in a case arising under the Constitution. This was urged at the October term, 1889, in Hans _vs._ Louisiana and North Carolina _vs._ Temple,[26] but the court overruled the contention and held that a state could not be sued by an individual in a United States court even in a case arising under the Constitution. Mr. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion of the court. He criticized the reasoning of the majority in Chisholm _vs._ Georgia, and upheld the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Iredell to the effect that, under the Constitution as originally adopted, no suit could be maintained against a state by an individual to enforce its debts except by its consent. Mr. Justice Harlan, however, while he concurred in holding that a suit directly against a state by one of its own citizens to enforce a debt was not within the judicial power of the United States, criticized the comments made by Mr. Justice Bradley upon the decision in Chisholm _vs._ Georgia as not necessary to the determination of the case, and expressed the opinion that the prior decision was based upon a sound interpretation of the Constitution as that instrument was then worded.

It has been stated in opinions of the Supreme Court that a state can be sued in a court of the United States by an individual if it waives its immunity and consents to be sued. But it is difficult to perceive how the consent or waiver of a state can, in any case and under any circumstances, confer upon the federal courts jurisdiction of a suit against it by a citizen of another state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state in the face of the imperative mandate of the amendment that "the judicial power of the United States shall _not be construed to extend_ to" any such suit. It is true that the court in the case of Clark _vs._ Barnard said that the immunity of a state from suit in a federal court was a personal privilege which it might waive at pleasure and that its appearance as a party defendant in a court of the United States would be a voluntary submission to its jurisdiction,[27] but in that case the state intervened as an actor and its intervention was such that it could be treated substantially as a plaintiff and the jurisdiction sustained on the ground that a state may sue an individual in a federal court. Although in the more recent case of Gunter _vs._ Atlantic Coast Line,[28] Mr. Justice White, delivering the opinion of the court, declared it to be an elementary proposition that a state could waive its immunity, it will be observed that in that case the suit was in fact against an officer of the state of South Carolina, and that the state itself was not a party to the record. It seems to me, with all deference, that the court has not yet squarely passed upon the point, nor, so far as I know, has it ever questioned the fundamental principle that a federal court cannot exercise jurisdiction in any case to which the judicial power of the United States, as delegated and defined in the Constitution, does not extend. An entirely different question is presented when we consider whether an officer of a state can consent or be authorized to consent to be sued in a federal court; in other words, whether he can waive the defense that the state is a necessary party to the suit. It does not follow that, because a state cannot be sued, it may not authorize its agent to defend on the merits without pleading the absence of the state as the real party in interest, and the denial of jurisdiction over the state as principal does not necessarily imply a denial of jurisdiction over the officer when doing or attempting to do an illegal act as its agent or representative. So, also, a different question is presented under the later amendments, which may be held to have qualified the eleventh amendment in authorizing Congress to enforce their provisions by appropriate legislation. As to that point I am not now prepared to express an opinion.

In construing the eleventh amendment for the purpose of ascertaining its true intent and meaning, as indeed in construing most of the provisions of the Constitution and its contemporaneous amendments, reference to the history and to the common law of England is generally the safest guide as to what was understood and intended at the time. In that history will be found the true sources of our institutions, for these are essentially and predominantly English. The legal and political institutions of England were constantly in the minds of the framers and of the people. The common law had long been regarded with affection and reverence as the birthright of Americans and the guardian at once of their private rights and their public liberties. Indeed, the Continental Congress, assembled in October, 1774, had declared the colonies entitled as of right to the common law.

The theory of the immunity of a state or of the United States from suit by an individual without its consent is frequently asserted to be analogous to the monarchical principle as to the immunity of the king from suit without his consent commonly expressed in the maxim that "the king can do no wrong." The idea seems to have been that in England it would be considered an invasion of the sovereignty of the crown and derogatory to its dignity to subject the king to a suit by an individual except with his consent, to be granted or refused in his arbitrary discretion. It is very doubtful whether any such idea finds support in the common law or history of England, or in the traditional usage and experience of that country to any such extent as is often insisted upon.

On the contrary, it had long been regarded in England as settled law that the subject was entitled to an effective legal remedy for any invasion of his legal rights by the king or the government. He had a right to sue the king for the restitution of property or money or for the recovery of damages for breach of contract, and to sue officers of the crown for any tortious acts. The practice established for centuries had been to present to the king a petition praying leave to sue him, and the custom had been for the king as of course to endorse on the petition his fiat that right be done. Thereafter the action proceeded as any other action between subject and subject. This right was conceded to aliens as well as to subjects. Although the leave to sue was nominally or theoretically granted as a matter of grace and not upon compulsion, it was in fact the constitutional duty of the king to grant it, and it was seldom denied. Under the common law, the subject was entitled as a matter of right--as one of the immemorial liberties of Englishmen--to inform his king of the nature of any grievance, and thereupon, in the language of Blackstone, "as the law presumes that to know of any injury and to redress it are inseparable in the royal breast, it then issues, as of course, in the king's own name, his orders to his judges to do justice to the party aggrieved."

The nature of the proceeding under a petition of right has been passed upon by the Supreme Court of the United States in several cases, and its decisions clearly show that the remedy is not to be regarded as a mere matter of grace, but as a right to sue and obtain redress in the class of cases to which it applies. Thus, Chief Justice Marshall, delivering the opinion of the court in Marbury _vs._ Madison at the February term, 1803, said: "In Great Britain the king himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court."[29] In United States _vs._ O'Keefe the court at the December term, 1870, examined the nature of the remedy in construing the act of Congress of July 27, 1868, now section 1068 of the United States Revised Statutes. Mr. Justice Davis, speaking for the court, said: "This valuable privilege, secured to the subject in the time of Edward the First, is now crystallized in the common law of England. As the prayer of the petition is grantable _ex debito justitiae_, it is called a petition of right, and is a judicial proceeding, to be tried like suits between subject and subject.... It is of no consequence that, theoretically speaking, the permission of the crown is necessary to the filing of the petition, because it is the duty of the king to grant it, and the right of the subject to demand it. And we find that it is never refused, except in very extraordinary cases, and this proves nothing against the existence of the right.... If the mode of proceeding to enforce it be formal and ceremonious, it is nevertheless a practical and efficient remedy for the invasion by the sovereign power of individual rights."[30] And in the later case of Carlisle _vs._ United States the court held that, under the proceeding known as the petition of right, the government of Great Britain accorded "the right to prosecute claims against such government in its courts" not only to subjects but to aliens.[31] Later still in the famous case of United States _vs._ Lee, which was an action at law to recover the property known as the Arlington National Cemetery from the possession of officers of the United States government, Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the court, said: "It is believed that the petition of right, as it has been practised and observed in the administration of justice in England, has been as efficient in securing the rights of suitors against the crown in all cases appropriate to judicial proceedings, as that which the law affords to the subjects of the king in legal controversies among themselves."[32]

The remedy under the petition of right has continued unimpaired to the present time. The procedure is now regulated by the statute 23 and 24 Victoria, ch. 34, passed July 3, 1860. The statute provides that the king by means of this proceeding may be sued at law or in equity as the particular case may require, and that the remedy afforded "shall comprehend every species of relief claimed or prayed for in any such petition of right, whether a restitution of any incorporeal right, or a return of lands or chattels, or a payment of money or damages, or otherwise." In granting or refusing the petition, the king acts under the advice of the home secretary, and the latter is responsible to parliament in case he shall arbitrarily or wrongfully advise a refusal.

The petition of right, however, is available only in cases in which it is sought to obtain restitution of lands or goods, or, if restitution cannot be given, compensation in money, or where the claim arises out of a contract, as for goods supplied to the crown or to the public service. It does not extend to cases of tort. If the king personally should commit or threaten to commit a tort, such, for example, as a trespass, he could not be proceeded against in either a civil or a criminal court; the ordinary law courts have no means of restraining or punishing him personally or affording redress against him for any wrong done by him personally. Not only does the maxim that "the king can do no wrong" prevent any ordinary court from granting relief against the king himself, but the courts have no jurisdiction against him in cases of tort.

Nevertheless, this ancient and fundamental maxim never meant that the king was above the law or could violate the law with impunity, nor was it ever understood in any such sense as that everything done by the king was to be regarded as just and lawful. On the contrary, it was fearlessly proclaimed in the days of Bracton that the king was below the law and bound to obey it, and in his coronation oath he swears to observe and respect it.

But whatever might have been the personal immunity of the king, it had been settled at common law long prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States that immunity from suit did not extend to any officer or servant of the crown. The very exemption of the king from responsibility before the courts in cases of tort conclusively established the personal responsibility of some officer or servant of the crown, and the direction or authority of the king did not constitute any warrant or defense for a wrongful and illegal act done by any officer or servant. As the Supreme Court said in the case of Langford _vs._ United States: "The English maxim does not declare that the government, or those who administer it, can do no wrong; for it is a part of the principle itself that wrong may be done by the governing power, for which the ministry, for the time being, is held responsible."[33]

The boast of Englishmen for centuries had been that no officer of the government was above the ordinary law. In his interesting lectures at Oxford as a successor of Blackstone in the Vinerian professorship, Professor Dicey says: "In England the idea of legal equality, or of the universal subjection of all classes, to one law administered by the ordinary courts, has been pushed to its utmost limit. With us every official, from the prime minister down to a constable or a collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen. The reports abound with cases in which officials have been brought before the courts, and made, in their personal capacity, liable to punishment, or to the payment of damages, for acts done in their official character but in excess of their lawful authority. A colonial governor, a secretary of state, a military officer, and all subordinates, though carrying out the commands of their official superiors, are as responsible for any act which the law does not authorize as is any private and unofficial person."[34] And Anson in his "Law and Custom of the Constitution" points out that the English Constitution "has never recognized any distinction between those citizens who are and those who are not officers of the state in respect of the law which governs their conduct or the jurisdiction which deals with them." In the famous case of Entick _vs._ Carrington (1765), a secretary of state sought immunity as an officer of the crown from a suit for damages by pleading reasons of state for an unlawful act, but Lord Chief Justice Camden declared that "with respect to the argument of state necessity or a distinction that has been aimed at between state offences and others, the common law does not understand that kind of reasoning, nor do our books take notice of any such distinctions."[35] And one hundred years later, in the case of Feather _vs._ The Queen, Lord Chief Justice Cockburn declared that "no authority is needed to establish that a servant of the crown is responsible in law for a tortious act done to a fellow subject, though done by the authority of the crown, a position which appears to us to rest on principles which are too well settled to admit of question, and which are alike essential to uphold the dignity of the crown on the one hand, and the rights and liberties of the subject on the other."[36]