Page:The Supreme Court in United States History vol 1.djvu/119

Rh several States have relinquished all their Sovereignties^ and have become mere corporations, upon the establish- ment of the National Government; for a sovereign State can never be sued or coerced by the authority of another government. Should this point be supported in favour of this cause against Maryland, each State in ' the Union may be sued by the possessors of their public securities and by all their creditors. As the executions will be against them as mere corporations, they will be issued against all the inhabitants generally; the Govr emour and all other citizens will be alike liable. Such offices will not be coveted. Even the constitutional privileges in the several States against arresting Senators and Representatives while the Courts are sitting, will be done away with." The issue came squarely before the Court in a suit brought at the August, 1792, Term by two citizens of South Carolina, executors of a British creditor, against the State of Georgia, Chisholm v. Oeorgia^ i Dallas, 419. A motion was made on August 11 by Attorney-General Edmimd Randolph, as coimsel for the plaintiff, that imless the State should enter its appearance at the next Term, a judgment should be entered against it.^ The Court, however, was anxious "to avoid every appearance of precipitancy and to giye the State time to deliberate on the measures she ought to adopt", and consequently

Yaxoo land grants; this is a mistake, it was the case of MouUriev, Oeorgiot filed in 1796, which involved such grants. Dallas in his Reports does not state the circumstances under which the ChUholm Case arose. Th^ were as follows (see Philadelphia dispatch in Salem Oazette, March 6, 1793) : " A citizen of Georgia had left America prior to the Revolution and removed to Great Britain, after settling a partnership account with two part- ners in trade whose bonds he took for the balance due. After his decease, his exec- ute's (who were citizens of South Carolina) on making application for payment found that these two persons who had given their joint bonds had been inimical to the cause of liberty in the United States and that their property was confis- cated. The executors, alleging that the bond was given previous to the Revolu- Uon* applied to the State of Georgia for relief."
 * In Marshall, III, ti5^t note 2» 582, it is stated that Chisholm v. Georgia involved