Amendment, 1789–1835
DOCUMENT 25: United States v. Peters, 1809
mild spirit of our country and its laws had pledged hospitality and pro- tection: that the men of our choice have more respected the bare suspi- cions of the President than the solid rights of innocence, the claims of justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms and substance of law and justice. In questions of power then let no more be heard of confi- dence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the claims of the Constitution. That this Commonwealth does therefore call on its co- States for an expression of their sentiments on the acts concerning aliens, and for the punishment of certain crimes herein before specified, plainly declaring whether these acts are or are not authorized by the Federal Compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether gen- eral or particular, and that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked on a common bottom with their own: That they will concur with this Commonwealth in con- sidering the said acts so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration, that the compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the general government, but that it will pro- ceed in the exercise over these States of all powers whatsoever: That they will view this as seizing the rights of the States and consolidating them in the hands of the general government with a power assumed to bind the States (not merely in cases made Federal) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent:
That this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and to live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made Federal, will concur in declaring these acts void and of no force, and will each unite with this Commonwealth in requesting their repeal at the next session of Congress.
Source: Henry Steele Commager, ed.,Documents of American History, 7th ed. (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1963), 1:178–182.
After nearly thirty years, in 1808, heirs of the crew made a claim against the Rittenhouse estate. The state of Pennsylvania passed a law protecting its access to that part of the estate and refused to allow a federal court of appeals to carry out its decision, which had been to support the claim of the heirs of the crew. Upon hearing the case, the Marshall Court decided in favor of national supremacy. States were not allowed to nullify acts of the federal government.
* * *
February 20.Marshall, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of the court as follows:
With great attention, and with serious concern, the court has consid- ered the return made by the judge for the District of Pennsylvania to the mandamus [a court order] directing him to execute the sentence pro- nounced by him in the case ofGideon Olmstead and othersv.Rittenhouse’s Executrixes, or to show cause for not so doing. The cause shown is an act of the legislature of Pennsylvania, passed subsequent to the rendition of his sentence. This act authorizes and requires the governor to demand, for the use of the state of Pennsylvania, the money which had been decreed to Gideon Olmstead and others; and which was in the hands of the executrixes of David Rittenhouse; and in default of payment, to direct the Attorney General to institute a suit for the recovery thereof. This act further authorizes and requires the governor to use any further means he may think necessary for the protection of what it denominates ‘‘the just rights of the state,’’ and also to protect the persons and properties of the said executrixes of David Rittenhouse, deceased, against any pro- cess whatever, issued out of any federal court in consequence of their obedience to the requisition of the said act.
If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgment of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery, and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instru- mentality of its own tribunals. So fatal a result must be deprecated by all; and the people of Pennsylvania, not less than the citizens of every other state, must feel a deep interest in resisting principles so destructive of the Union, and in averting consequences so fatal to themselves.
The act in question does not, in terms, assert the universal right of the state to interpose in every case whatever; but assigns, as a motive for its interposition in this particular case, that the sentence, the execution of which it prohibits, was rendered in a cause over which the federal courts have no jurisdiction.
If the ultimate right to determine the jurisdiction of the courts of the Union is placed by the constitution in the several state legislatures, then this act concludes the subject; but if that power necessarily resides in the
supreme judicial tribunal of the nation, then the jurisdiction of the Dis- trict Court of Pennsylvania, over the case in which that jurisdiction was exercised, ought to be most deliberately examined; and the act of Penn- sylvania, with whatever respect it may be considered, cannot be permit- ted to prejudice the question. . . .
While this suit was depending, the state of Pennsylvania forbore to assert its title, and, in January, 1803, the court decreed in favor of the libellants; soon after which, the legislature passed the act which has been stated.
It is contended that the federal courts were deprived of jurisdiction, in this cause, by that amendment [Eleventh Amendment] of the consti- tution which exempts states from being sued in those courts by individ- uals. This amendment declares, ‘‘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.’’
The right of a state to assert, as plaintiff, any interest it may have in a subject, which forms the matter of controversy between individuals, in one of the courts of the United States, is not affected by this amendment;
nor can it be so construed as to oust the court of its jurisdiction, should such claim be suggested. The amendment simply provides, that no suit shall be commenced or prosecuted against a state. The state cannot be made a defendant to a suit brought by an individual; but it remains the duty of the courts of the United States to decide all cases brought before them by citizens of one state against citizens of a different state, where a state is not necessarily a defendant. In this case, the suit was not in- stituted against the state or its treasurer, but against the executrixes of David Rittenhouse, for the proceeds of a vessel condemned in the court of admiralty, which were admitted to be in their possession. If these proceeds had been the actual property of Pennsylvania, however wrong- fully acquired, the disclosure of that fact would have presented a case on which it is unnecessary to give an opinion. . . .
Source: Joseph P. Cotton, Jr., ed.,The Constitutional Decisions of John Marshall(New York: Da Capo Press, 1971), 1:219–225. For further reading on the Marshall Court and its relationship to national supremacy, see the 1816 decision,Martin v. Hun- ter’s Lessee. In one of the most nationalistic opinions ever rendered, Justice Joseph Story asserted that in matters of ultimate constitutional authority the Supreme Court could reverse the decisions of the highest state courts. Justice Joseph Story rejected the principle of equal sovereignty between the states and the federal government. Story argued that the people, not the states, had created the national government and therefore the Supreme Court was the ‘‘final constitutional au- thority over all other elements of government, including state courts.’’ As con- stitutional historian Charles Warren would later observe, Story’s opinion for the Marshall Court inMartin v. Hunter’s Lessee(1816) established the ‘‘keystone of
the whole arch of Federal judicial power.’’ Charles Warren,The Supreme Court in United States History(Boston: Little, Brown, 1922) 1:449.
DOCUMENT 26: Report and Resolutions of the Hartford