Page:John P. Branch Historical Papers - Volume 2.djvu/303

156 Virginia on that subject in addition to what has already been said, I beg leave to refer to the following resolutions of her legislative body. In the session of October 1792, the Legislature referring to the suit then depending against Virginia in the federal court, inter alia, resolved “that the state cannot be made a defendant in the said court at the suit of any individuals.” Again in the session of 1796 , it was resolved that the executive take such measures to defend the above mentioned suit, “as may seem to them most conducive to the and interest of the commonwealth.” I will only here add from The Federalist , that it is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable, at the suit of an individual without its consent, and that this exemption is one of the attributes of sovereignty now enjoyed by the governments of every state in the Union, and that therefore, unless there be a surrender of this immunity, in the constitution, it will remain with the states. Again it is said, that “to ascribe to the federal courts by mere implication and in destruction of a pre-existing right of the state governments, a power which would involve such a consequence would be altogether forced and unwarrantable."

Although these just objections touching both the sovereignty and dignity of the states, existed as to suits brought by individuals and a jurisdiction was justly ceded to the federal courts as to claims by other states, for the purpose of a fair and equal arbitration of them, the anxiety of the states to obtain the eleventh amendment to the constitution is ascribed by the court to motives entirely sordid. They have said that the jurisdiction was denied thereby to the citizens