Page:The Supreme Court in United States History vol 1.djvu/120

94 postponed consideration of the motion to the next Term. On February 5, 1793, the ease came on for argument, the State of Georgia refusing to appear and presenting a written remonstrance of protestation through Alexander J. Dallas and Jared Ingersoll of Pennsylvania, denying the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain any such suit. To this attitude, Attorney-General Randolph, who appeared for the plaintiff, referred in opening his argument, saying: "I did not want the remonstrance of Georgia, to satisfy me that the motion which I have made is unpopular. Before that remonstrance was read, I had learned from the acts of another State, whose will must always be dear to me, that she too condemned it. On ordinary occasions, these dignified opinions might influence me greatly; but, on this, which brings into question a constitutional right, supported by my own conviction, to surrender it would be in me an official perfidy." On February 18, 1793, only fourteen days after Randolph's argument, the Court rendered its decision, sustaining the right of a citizen of one State to institute an original suit in the Supreme Court against another State for breach of contract. The public interest in the case was so great that the Clerk of the Court, Samuel Bayard, issued to the newspapers a comprehensive summary which, he stated, "will be found accurate, though by no means so full as I could wish. As the determination of Monday may perhaps give umbrage to the advocates of * State Sovereignty', it is ardently wished that the arguments of the Judges and the speech of the Attorney General on this important subject may early be submitted to the public eye." After reciting the preliminary