In the eighty-first number of the same series, replying to apprehensions
expressed by some that a State might be brought before the Federal
courts to answer as defendant in suits instituted against her, he repels
the idea in these plain and conclusive terms. The italics are my own:
"It is inherent in the nature of _sovereignty_ not to be
amenable to the suit of any individual without its consent. This
is the general sense and the general practice of mankind; and
the exemption, as one of the _attributes of sovereignty_, is now
enjoyed by the government of _every State in the Union_. Unless,
therefore, there is _a surrender of this immunity_ in the plan
of the Convention, _it will remain with the States_, and the
danger intimated must be merely ideal.... The contracts between
_a nation_ and individuals are only binding on the conscience of
_the sovereign_, and have no pretensions to a compulsive force.
They confer no right of action, independent of _the sovereign
will_. To what purpose would it be to authorize suits against
States for the debts they owe? How could recoveries be enforced?
It is evident that it could not be done without _waging war_
against the contracting State; and to ascribe to the Federal
courts, by mere implication, and in destruction of a preexisting
right of the State governments, a power which would involve such
a consequence, would be altogether forced and unwarranted.
Pages:
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275