*1 '478 Georgia.
Florida Order. on the of on be heard This cause came record transcript States United for the district court northern dis- from the and was counsel. On California, considera- argued by trict of ordered, it now here and decreed adjudged, tion whereof the said district court, that the decree of court this cause this affirmed, with costs. and the same is be, hereby v. The The Florida, Complainant, State Georgia. jurisdiction, original proceeding the form of in which this court cases not In congress, and orders court. act of but the rules of the regulated analogy practice English framed in in the rules orders are court of These practice, does this chancery. But the court not follow where would embarrass technicality purposes justice. by unnecessary defeat the the case proceeding by bring the United States can is mode of which into review no There boundary upon question this between two court Jus- the decision States. States, represent requires that the United tice therefore interests States, being twenty-nine opportunity have an should heard before boundary is established. information, stating having filed an interests of between attorney-general boundary line of the the establishment Florida involved States behalf of the United States and appear he Georgia; and proofs has a adduce one, true boundary by them be the and to support of the claimed argument. heard at not, proceeding, become the technical will no The United States sense against word, them. judgment will be entered for or But of the evidence offered, behalf, the court deciding in their will be considered arguments controversy. the matter in surveys maps liberty to made. But party is at to cause court does Bach persons purpose. for appoint it advisable to deem it is the State Florida filed 293, In 11 How. reported exercise of jurisdiction, a bill in this original establish the State boundary Georgia against answered, and other proceedings them. The State Georgia issue, nor was all the case ; but the yet were.had taken parties proposed rely. testimony in court term, At appeared the present attorney-general at the same time information, moving filed following United States for behalf of the leave to intervene on reasons stated in information. 1854, Caleb December, Now, Cushing, on this 15th day in his comes person proper court, and for said United gives into the (cid:127)here informed, of com- bill and be to understand certain in said or in behalf State of pending plaint defendant, the State of Florida, complainant, Georgia, against is in a certain wherein line portion boundary between said lands thereto. contiguous *2 Mariano of the of That D. State by Papy, attorney-general Florida, formal name notice in the and behalf-of said State has been to the United States that matter of said bill is the given interest and of concern the said States. United That, said inspection of bill of it by complaint, appears of the State in Florida line that the of alleges boundary portion should run, at the of the Flint question junction commencing and Chattahoochee Rivers, and thence in a line to a straight at near a Mound, monument called Ellicott’s point commonly assumed at the head of the River has St. which line Mary’s, been known as McNeil’s the of the United surveyed States, and is surveyors line, howsoever the otherwise same may be described designated. in said That bill of of State Florida further complaint that the that, State alleges, of Georgia pretends commencing of Rivers, junction aforesaid, Flint Chattahoochee the said line should run to a called Lake or a point Spalding, called Lake point Randolph. It further the said of Lake appears points Spalding Lake are situated about miles to the south of Randolph thirty said Ellicott’s Mound, be, and the effect of will the pretence of sustained, State to transfer to of said State Georgia a tract of land of a Georgia shape having triangle, some base of miles, and sides each of the equal thirty length about one of miles, hundred and fifty upwards comprehending of one million two hundred thousand acres of land, which been considered and treated heretofore as domain publje United States, and as such, and much of surveyed been sold and as of the accordingly patented by government of East Florida from territory acquired Spain. And for the information of herein, the court the attorney-, — files, annexed to this general motion: 1. A certified of the traverse line so copy surveyed (cautionary) in 1825, said McNeil. 2. A certified field-notes line so traverse copy said surveyed. 3. A line, certified copy map true (cautionary) from plotted line, traverse said McNeil. 4. An official copy diagram surveyor-general United States for Florida, lands of United surveys public States in said State, 30,1853. September
Whereupon,
in consideration of the interest and concern
SUPREME COURT.
said bill
of com-
United States manifestly apparent
United States
the said
prays
plaint,
consideration
here, and moves the court
he be
of the court
in said
and be heard in behalf of the
to appear
permitted
States, in such time
form as the court shall order.
Slates,
and was
motion was
This
opposed
argued by
General, in behalf of
Attorney-
States;
Mr.
on behalf of the
Berrien,
Mr.
Badger
State
Georgia,
Johnson, on behalf of
and Mr.
and Mr. Westcoit
of Florida.
“ the file
character,
of this
where
affords
no
question
Upon
if he
would be
could
reporter
pleased
report
precedent,”
extenso; but
of counsel in
want
room compels
arguments
him
to the reader
condensed
to submit
following
sketch
arguments.
respective
imperfect
view of the
Mr. Cushing
general
subject
began
in other
intervention,
countries,
was considered
how
Spain,
latter;
and how
France,
far
particularly
England,
been
doctrines had
United States.
recognized
the English
*3
from the
of intervention between
subject
then passed
private
He
interfered,
cases
to
where
both in
attorney-general
persons
He then considered the
and this
effect of
country.
England
Stats, at
the office
Large,
act of
93,) establishing
congress, (1
“ to
it his
making
prosecute
duty
of attorney-general,
court in which the
in the
United
all suits
conduct
supreme
”
that, if
and contended
concerned;
be
govern-
States shall
intervention,' it
in this case
cannot be
be heard
ment cannot
heard
at ail.
16th heads
the 15th and
entire.
under
given
His argument
to
claimed for
If there were no
justify
right
15.
precedents
one,
should make
the court
defer-
then
the attorney-general,
down
Lord
of
laid
Cotten-
to the
ence
equity
great principle
is the
it
court of
ham,
Salmon,
v.
duty
in Taylor
of
its
and course
as far
to
proceeding,
adapt
practice
chancery
as
of
to
its
state
society,
apply
possible,
existing
which,
from
to all those new cases
progress
arise;
must
men,
in the affairs of
continually
daily making
to forms and rules established
not, from too
adherence
strict an
circumstances, decline to administer justice,
under
different
very
there is no other
and to enforce
for which
remedy.” Tay-
141.
Salmon,
lor v.
4
and Craig,
Mylne
that it has
This
decided
ample power
court has repeatedly
American
the new
for
purely
regulate chancery practice
course,
of
States;
of suits in
subject,
question,
equity
v. State
Grayson
in this respect.
the control
congress
n 481
Georgia.
320;
State of
Corolina,
3
Dal.
South
Ib.
Huger
Virginia,
Connecticut,
4 Ib. 1;
of New
v. State
State
York
371; State
York,
283;
v. State of New
Pet.
State of
New
Jersey
Massachusetts,
State of
482
Florida 4. The United States might in a prejudiced § States suit between two the forms of through law. 1, The as follows:— provides (Art. 3) constitution § “ 3. New States admitted into congress 'but no State shall be new Union; formed or erected within the other State; nor State be jurisdiction junction any formed the the States, two or more of States, without parts concerned, consent the States as well legislatures as of the congress.” “ constitution, also, shall, State 1, No with- By (Art. 10,) § out the consent of .... enter into congress, any agree- ment another State.” compact two These clauses of the constitution are pari materia, to be construed cannot establish that together; two they boundary States common without consent of change congress. The United States have interest in the general question States, the boundaries of tive relations of the because- of sundry political legisla- as, instance, subject: apportionment districts, members cial the house of collection representatives, judi- districts, reference to things many having boundaries States. be involved, in the likewise rights may present Treaty line is defined where the tween the United dispute be treaty Stats, 2, States and Great art. Britain, at (8 between the United 81,) treaty Large, (8 art. Ib. 2, These treaties are a Spain, 140.) of that law, which it supreme part peculiar duty officers, tribunals, its maintain and execute. be in acts of question, as here Special congress may case. present 3,1845, for the act of the State of March By admitting Stats, the Union, 63, (cid:127)into ch. said State 743, Large, 5,) (5 § of Florida shall Florida, embrace territories of East and West which, settlement, and limits amity, treaty 1819, the United States and were ceded on 22d Spain day February, United States.” State of And section of act, 7th Florida was ad- mitted condition into Union .upon express shall never lands interfere with the disposal public primary State, within the nor tax whilst same levy remaining of the property here to intervene to protect attorney-general, proposing States, so, a tech- the interests of desires do *5 1854. Georgia.
Florida the one or the other party; joining nical party; mode of or complaint conducting in-subordination other, one State or nor .to by subject defence adopted by acts, of their or of possible the consequences any mispleading, or or omission admission omission plead, insufficient pleading, with, or to or but free both; fact either cooperate of by op- forth all either, and to case both, or bring points pose whether as to the law or own to the to his judgment, according oritur jus. for ex facts; facto cannot, and of Florida direct by As the Georgia them, between without the consent of or contract agreement Florida, established change boundary by congress, it follows that not to be act of ought the said congress, they the suit either to alter boundary pending, permitted mistake omission pleading, pleading, possible mispleading, or direct confession, evidence, or omission of by any faithful, and full view of all facts true, pertinent means the from the withheld view and judgment question might of the court. and East and domain West As the jurisdiction public the United States, from Florida, were Spain acquired so States was acquired thereafter the territory defined, boundaries so with its admitted into the Union with the reservation disposal to the United States taxation the State be free of lands, and they public States, the con- property whilst remain inevitable, this court to seems to (supposing clusion on the direct question primitive original that the to be ought of the boundaries,) inter- to intervene protect suffered completely, .fully acts ests o' the United without by any being prejudiced whether Florida or of either of omissions litigant Georgia. mistakes, show the (cid:127)Otherwise, without power possible errors, insufficient im- omissions, pleadings, mispleadings, two, the one admissions or proper agreement interests would other, the means public protecting end; two States wholly inadequate might, or their their own acts, .entered by pleadings, agreement established record in the true lawfully change interests,, them to the direct boundary prejudice of the United States. laws rights, doc- consideration, It is on This others, whole among as to the trine equity, necessity proper Each is to his stands. interested defend own rights, merits, to his view of their without being according lawfully the acts or omissions See prejudiced through co-party. ch. 4. Story’s Equity Pleadings, are not If the United States no decree in the case present, § be made to the of the United States. can prejudice *6 Berrien, Mr. on behalf of the Badger Mr. of motion, the the Georgia, opposed grounds, following — namely: the its motion, of as on face and as object appearing the brief the is : of That he, explained by attorney-general, the the as of the United part representative may a fact, be made to this suit in but not in form; party may the exercise all may aof without a rights party becoming party; be, be, a without seeming party. On it of State of is insisted part that the Georgia, because, cannot be motion granted, Under constitution, 1. this court has not and cannot have of a jurisdiction cause, but as any States of between the Union; and the of appearance therein would determine the the cause out jurisdiction put of court. 2. To allow the United States to become in a fact party, without one, on the record to be would be a appearing mere inhibition, evasion of of a deliberate constitutional all the involving guilt instrument, violation accompanied an artful conceal it; enhanced contrivance to by violation in form, substance' not in and therefore though utterly unworthy of this constitutional court. high 3. If the motion should be the United States would granted, on the record be a judicially appear not made party, though so or in manner usual process court; in this and, therefore, the would, court be once, gone. 4. There is no such precedent to be obtained. intervention example isas here sought We aside all the put references in learned brief to pro- under law, the civil as ceedings question; irrelevant to the being utterly for that law gives neither rule nor judgment this court. practice of This cause one regulates equity jurisdiction, as governed, decision, the the principles law of courts of statutes treaties of equity, States, and to the course of proceeding prac- tice subordination chancery England, the paramount If, of this rules’ court. there- authority fore, it could be demonstrated that what is, asks been, allowed of grace always right all the courts coun- France, and other German advanced of continental we one tries tittle towards should. Europe, or the propriety showing allowing here. done intervention, In no whether or involun- voluntary England, used in connection, term may properly tary, known, the intervener and submit- except becoming ' his decision of the matters rights dispute ting shall conclude tribunal, so that those judgment rights. case in other There, whatever be the coun- European may understood, been in virtue tries, no has ever applied process one not a to the record of which may interpose them, contest their or the of one of two litigants, rights rights embarrass and obstruct their direct or control their proceedings, all the chances of management obtaining taking controversy, them, one of judgment against binding upon retire at the both, of the contest with .conclusion unaffected his own adverse to his claims. judgment where are found to have such On the third contrary, persons an interest in the to be subject litigation .ought these, heard made to be required before judgment, persons *7 to the intent that all in interest persons may be concluded the final award of the tribunal. This is em- court, true in in the phatically' regard equity proceedings and not to the crown less in than to chancery, regard private This evident from cases cited abundantly persons. is. — in : of his motion. For attorney-general support example counsel then cited and commented on the cases of (The Baltimore, Sen., ; Penn v. Sch. and 1 Ves. 444 Hovenden v. 2 Annesley, 607; Lef. 1 Attorney-General Molloy, Galway, established that the be must a party.) king 5. United States The concerned” in the in .notli questions cause, volved in within the this the act of meaning congress means, the duties of the that term attorney-general; prescribing concerned in and cannot interest, interested,” and is equivalent exactly be in used in reference to an im meaning like the Stares. The United cases cited personal sovereignty is the show what makes nature of that interest of the king in that he should be for necessary England party: a contest two his example, claiming grantees of different value, rents where it' that the record upon appears success him who holds at the smaller will be imme rent like' revenue, crown diately certainly prejudicial cases. Here no interest record. United States on the appears It is a question as to the between two States. merely boundary resolved, However United no suffers States gains
41* of the States loss, neither under States holding no as a or other to the tenant, or duty owing any payment on account of her for or The possession jurisdiction. interest in the question, be- seeming having any only sides the lands two are those having upon disputed but are be, whose titles affected necessarily, territory, The United States have judgment against plaintiff. by no and therefore not a interest, real or apparent, necessary cases to the or even a to referred controversy. proper party in which the United States are attorney-general, in are all him this consistent officially represented by Actions, instance, here with the view name taken. brought such, of heads of are suits departments in the States, as name of an truly attorney- information office, is, of the crown master England, general, suit, &c. king’s interest, some United States have in- Supposing direct, decision .consequential, contingent, such cause, and question England supposing interest crown represented might attorney- there, it follow that the doth not here general can assume, such interest. virtute officii, represent 7. Even an act could not enable him to intervene congress For, for the United in this if made in this suit court. States not a either court would proceed party, it, constitution, before in which this court according cannot or dismiss the bill for want hold original cognizance, conferred thus a constitu- jurisdiction; tion would with- expressly exclusively from it drawn of an act of and in defiance force congress, of the constitution. .the whole, it court cannot Upon appears clearly the motion of the grant attorney-general. "What then remains to be done ? If the United interest which consequential ought represented, court cannot, as did the lord chancellor v. The Attorney- Reeve General, Atkins, 223, dismiss the bill in order proceedings court; be taken in such another for there is no might *8 court, and this of the controversy only, having cognizance between the two decline the court cannot States; exercise of its over the two exclusive principal jurisdiction because interests. incidental subordinate parties, such We submit, as and inevitable consequence, a necessary court must with the cause between present- proceed intervention, third informal, without or formal any whatever. party on behalf Johnson, State Mr. Westcott Mr. —: reasons Florida, the motion for the following opposed case, is this founded 1. That the this constitution those clauses of the federal upon exclusively declare that “ United States shall ex- judicial power ” “ States,” or more tend nection with that clause which to controversies between two in con- “ in those cases provides constitution, in the as cases enumerated (referring being a shall be State in which federal judicial party, cognizance,) court shall have jurisdiction.” supreme original cited, federal constitution 2. That clauses of the extend ” “ controversies between federal two judicial power ing States,” more refer or to cases in which exclusively a distinct therein, and make such cases separate in the constitution; class from all the other cases enumerated and case, whether at law do not reach or or apply any co-defendant, or a there is a wherein equity, co-plaintiff it be State, States; or and if conceded that than in with a State other of the a suit in in this under consti equity, the. tutional hath join provisions, complainant individual, interested officer, or or or corporation, or that defendant; or such as party complainant hath make of the United States authority this court the United States such to possesses power party; interested, as in an of all order as parties ordinary joinder state courts; in our case in chancery equity, English, t! that in this contro it is nevertheless insisted complainant, cannot courses States,” between two such pursued; versy the same had been or this, an act of congress allowing though should be passed. above 3. That if the hold that the secondly court should point another erroneous, stated is a and that the joinder Orwith State, Florida, with the co-complainant, co-defendant, not affect juris- the State would of Georgia, diction court- as invoked by of this over the present federal filed, in the bill the clauses under complainant constitution above to in bill.) referred said cited, (and especially an act cannot, then it without is insisted that the complainant States a same, make'the United congress authorizing consent of the attorney-general even if the party bill; law, such that, without ; States is therefor given order, mero ex court doth (either not possess power motu, said attorney-general, express application of such States.) or at instance either or both of litigant complainant or of the United States as a joinder defendant in this case. *9 488 Georgia.
Florida 4. That admission, insomuch as in the States, the United by- act of of Floridas, as a and congress, sovereign independent into State all union, federal that State of yielded rights ” “or eminent domain had within sovereignty bounda- they the state constitution; ries of declared by became mere of the unsold proprietor thereby ungranted boundaries; within said not now lands included “ in reference to this or other higher prerogatives, controversy,” land or alien of situate on than citizen proprietor territory the titles of in between two said dispute litigant from the United States; of such lands derived being proprietors of if the claim sus- Georgia consequently, tained, than the several will be ñor thousand residents destroyed; time, of to this been considered have, said resi- up territory, who. Florida, and have dent State of exercised the citizens of the such whose citizenship, and immunities rights, privileges, of this court state decree con- will allegiance changed by and the the claim of the State Georgia; complainant firming said insists that and interests all proprietors, (in- are, in residents, and of said cluding States,) of Florida, the State subordinate those regard, entirely their contest, and are to her action as now-in subject political in the premises. sovereign character of a suit at 5. the anomalous law That reason of by “ or more in between two or independent) (sovereign equity invo) as of well States,” prop- sovereignty, ing before a a federative virtue of erty; compact, instituted a defendant tribunal, judicial summoning legal process, claims, her and abide State to submit the bar the court to al, from trib which decision and decree of arbitrament 58 there is rules no most of the procedure ordinary appeal; or chancery Eng- cases before the courts of common law as aids counsel land, to such ineffective inapplicable its defence, and useless prosecution “ de- arbitrament or in its controversy,” investigation extra- different, and additional, cision ; and, consequence, formula; must prescribed ordinary and procedure, before “controversy” in every conformed to the parties, this court, two or more States.” additional, differ- 6. of such That necessary, adoption “ in controversies ent, rules and extraordinary procedure, before, is not court, it States,” between two more brought procedure the rules furnished restricted guides like no tribunals, (wherein law chancery common English such nor, in the determination case is to be found;) supplied the consideration principles this court limited to which such case jurisprudence, by.the English systems unknown, it are above the reach principles controlling and, of those therefore, scope systems: beyond when- theories soever a and from rules and will facilitate departure English *10 of will the settlement the aid in the better controversy, speed involved, all of and interests of whether the just protection rights “ are. of not others this States who parties,” parties,” “ of and court of invoke rules systems jurisprudence may rightfully countries, of other and with in the tribunals procedure, espe- “ rules cial to the and resort civil propriety principles ” of law of the continent of source much original Europe, (the of law of the common law and most of the chancery England, or, but this of more and liberal honora- enlarged applicability;) ble so court a case and may, peculiarly rightfully exclusively American, and its is so based whereof entirely States, devise, the constitutional between compact adopt, and enforce such rules of such procedure, appropriate original “ casé, “ as, in best tend to establish justice,” judgment, may declared insure domestic and promote tranquillity,” this, that there cannot’ be cited of and objects compact; though transatlantic therefor. .example precedent That, as there are involved in this case rights of of two sovereignty property, and also and interests of others but litigant not to important rights identical facts and record, founded on the law parties of its therein, be as the basis decree court, submitted to those not will neces- all and interests rights determined said decree; be affected if not conclusively sarily and this concedes the propriety rightfulness complainant allow;' case, as to in-this so the rules of devising procedure interested, those though parties, privilege immediately and and and defending maintaining opportunity and heard in interests, being and adducing proofs, court argu- that same should end; this ment before as be full extent such form and such liberal done cause, without embarrassment with the consistent or progress as will not abridge, compromit prejudice to the exclusive control respective parties their own the mode and means enforcing management rights concedes, that also interests; the complainant 1,200,000 to some as the title of the United States insomuch acres what are to be claimed of unsold and lands ungranted “ States,” United’ lands of the as public designated usually estimated value of $1,200,000, several States for the States are the constitutional trustees as and, insomuch thereof; and the. confederacy, people of the federal to refund amounts liability treasury large into paid as of the United States, for purchase-money, by patentees lands heretofore sold the United States to them, and also to sums for and for will pay affected claim made improvements large damages, some and in determined respects conclusively, bill by Georgia (suggested complaint) established exceed cial which amounts and sums will probably whilst she 01,500,000; denies complainant, any spe- to the United as prerogative appertaining govern- ment, or any special privilege United States, to interfere this case, virtute officii, except said aforesaid; forth, because of all above set yet, premises for the reason that the United States cannot be especially made .a case, or defendant in this doth concede complainant the rules of so this court procedure adopted by may rightfully aforesaid, be extended in this to the properly States, and be allowed to inter- attorney-general may vene,” as above as he' hath under such restrictions applied such others as suggested by complainant,-or maybe deemed this honorable court proper *11 8. be That- if it held this honorable that the com- by is error as to the above plainant in and points presented; United be the States made or a may complainant ease, in this either without an defendant act therefor, congress an be or such act that therefor; and that by may passed authority the admitted im- protection joinder necessary for the United and interests of States involved therein portant rights then, this aforesaid; insists, as that if complainant respectfully to to no act enable them be requisite made such congress court not to this honorable dismiss the said bill of ought did the them as such complainant join complaint, party in the case till the bill, in but should said decision stay proceedings the done, same be under order an of this court and if such act of be deemed therefor; congress proper in that a thereof made thi3 case necessary, honorable suggestion by case, in order to until stay proceedings the the executive and federal departments legislative govern- behalf, such course in that ment be enabled adopt upon the of this as they may application complainant, respectively or otherwise the deem advisable to that end in premises. delivered TANEY the of the court. Mr. Chief Justice opinion of the motion the The court made by proceed dispose heard for-leave to be on behalf the attorney-general State of States, between the the State the suit of Georgia. v,
riorida
line
these
that the
two States
boundary
It appears
bill
been
in this
filed
court
the
in controversy,
ascertain and establish it.
of Florida
information,
has filed an
The
stating
line;
are interested
the settlement of this
contains
million
one
dispute
that
two hundred
the
upwards
territory
land,
thousand acres of
and was ceded
the
that,
Florida;
as
the
United States by Spain
part
caused the
of it to be
as
United States have
whole
surveyed
land,
it,
and issued
and sold
portion
large
patents
public
And
these
he asks leave to
upon
grounds
purchasers.
the
claimed
the -United
offer
establish
proofs
boundary
heard,
States,
behalf,
and to be
motion is resisted on
in their
the
on
argument.
the
part
has been
counsel for the
question
fully
respective
argued
is,
And
as
new question,
degree,
seme
parties.
so
and interests of
we
concerns
much
importance,
to consider it.
time
taken
If
motion
to be
there
was
heard
merely
argument,
at
have
it is
would, we
been no
it on
part
presume,
opposition
familiar
of
hear
he
States. For
practice
individuals, when
in suits between
the attorney-general
interests are involved
public
suggests that.
for one of the
heard,
And he
counsel
parties
decision.
record,
on behalf of the United
on
but
repre-
This
done in several instances
their interests.
senting
as a
term,
the United States had sold lands
part
where
the last
pf
under
domain,
claimed
which were
public
individuals
to have been made
France
Spain previous
alleged
grants
to this
to the cession
country.
cases, however,
were
these
attorney-
In
they
argued
evidence
respective parties.
produced by
general
States.
was offered on. behalf of
No new evidence
is,
now made
that he cannot
permitted
And the objection
unless
United States are
evidence in
adduce
cannot,
record; and that
under
provis-
court, in the
constitution,
in this
become parties
ions óf
*12
term,
a suit between two States.
sense
legal
to consider this
We
objection.
proceed
court
confers
this
original jurisdiction
The constitution
ministers, and
ambassadors, other
in
public
all cases affecting
it
And
be a
in which a State shall
consuls, and those
party.
decisions, that a
settled,
boundary
question
by repeated
within the
thus conferred.
States is
between
jurisdiction
no
constitution
mode
But the
prescribes
particular
pro-
the,
nor is there
act
upon,
subject
congress
ceeding,
.
at a
a
And
doubt
very
arose
early period
government
whether the court could exereise its
with-
original jurisdiction
act of
out
and mode
congress
previous
regulating
process
court,
But
consideration,
held,
much
proceeding.
upon
that
had
although congress
undoubtedly
prescribe
and mode of
in
cases,
the
in
such
as
as
process
proceeding
fully
the omission to
on the
yet
legislate
subject
could
court
that
deprive
conferred;
jurisdiction
court;
it "was
absence
imposed upon
duty
the court itself was
any legislation by congress,
authorized
its mode and form of
as to
so
prescribe
the ends for which the
proceeding;
accomplish
was
given.
There was no
where indi-
difficulty'
exercising
power
;
viduals were
courts of common
for the established
forms
usages
would
law
be
naturally
adopted.
equity
But these
could not
a case
where
precedents
govern
sovereign
State was a
defendant. Nor could the
proceedings
boundaries,
in a
about
English chancery
in this
where the
proprietary governments
country,
to the
territory
subject
authority
English govern-
ment, and the
person
proprietary subject
authority
courts,
of its
as a
where
adopted
guide
sovereign
question
were
in a
court
litigating
boundary
States.
furnished
but
more. And it
They
analogies,
nothing
became, therefore, the
of the court to mould its
duty
proceed-
itself,
in a manner that
the ends of
ings
would best attain
and enable it to exercise
justice,
con-
conveniently
power
was,
ferred. And in
this,
doubt,
without
one of its
doing
first
all
them from
technicali-
objects
disengage
unnecessary
ties and niceties, and to conduct the
proceedings
simplest
form in which the ends of
could
attained.
justice
It is
to have acted
principle
appear
its
where a State
awas
defend-
forming
proceedings
ant. The
came before them in
subject
Grayson Virginia,
Florida here but must law, formed regulated by depend upon .the court, shall rules we not em- prescribed regulations thém barrass to conform proceedings endeavoring strictly mode precedents regard pleadings, English information on behalf the United States has which been to be the and best manner of presented, simplest bringing it to do before the and of interest to all enabling justice whose involved in the decision. DANIEL, Mr. Justice McLEAN, Mr. Justice Mr. Justice CURTIS, CAMPBELL, Justice and Mr. dissented. CURTIS, Mr. Justice It dissenting. is in with natural accordance justice, principle that no one should be affected of jurisprudence, judgment an decree, without either opportunity present himself or his lawful some representative, regular and to course, be heard thereon; his proofs, allegations legal have assented to and, therefore, I should application in this and would concur with a attorney-general willingly direct to be entered, court in the order I majority did not find it to too for me to dis- objections subject grave reflection, even under careful the influence of regard, the brethren, I feel for the opinions my respect great me overcome. enabled can, as I what these are. state, I In objections will briefly the nature and effect of the so, I shall first examine appli- doing it is in the to see whether cation power attorney-general, and I will then it, made; consider of the court grant thé directed court same whether order subject or in difficulties, in whole. part substance, is, information, an ex That application officio informs this here, a suit State pendency there is in wherein the State Georgia, against States; those line between the boundary portion of Florida, bill from inspection appears, and of the answer sions' of the State *16 if the that, of preten- of the State Georgia, sustained shall be of Georgia be so run as to include will in controversy the line boundary tract of about a of land limits of that State the within territorial been con- acres, which have thousand million hundred one two as domain United public heretofore sidered and treated has been of such, and much as States, and surveyed as States, being part and sold granted from Florida, acquired Spain. of East territory Georgia. Florida information, the has of this filed In attorney-general support that, a and he and considera- documents map; prays certain of concern the he of interest and United the may tion be to in the heard in behalf of be appear permitted form the States, in such time and court shall United the order. relates now on the case this information stands a bill filed the State of docket of this upon original an of No answer replication and, taken. in, course, no proofs had been put is therefore, since case not now in a is It quite apparent, since much to be to a time must hearing, condition necessarily nature brought of the court and the course elapse, considering and the character before that this heard, can be into a application put state to obtain the priv- is merely designed cause, an by making taking hearing ilege part bar, at the proofs they may pleading argument upon be set for that time shall when the a exist cause hearing, may arrive. to me not consistent with that ever It seems respect that he due to the which is suppose attorney-general, their counsel, of Florida and caused the States Georgia, by to listen to and here, and has called on court con- appear elaborate learned con- questions sider arguments upon law merely present stitutional question at general jurisprudence, case should, that this whether —in contingency to a and in event some future brought hearing, day, time, the interest States should that, at that —be as it is now the court hear the would alleged remain law interests. officer of its support decrees justice upon make orders and actually Courts occur at fact, states of what may possibly existing dictate future. And obvious some period ordinary courts is when obeyed by equity, acting rigidly prudence that now before court. like subjects a In number and has great variety England, sovereign affected courts which be more decrees of interests rights, hereafter, As will stated fully attorney- equity. crown of those no in respect rights, general represents decree them is made he has had until opportunity affecting he suit. whether become But question, same time, raised and at the in the same necessary party, way as the whether question person necessary party. private And, believe, I in which should instance search vain we at.issue, had before-it was made an order in cause
42* *17 Georgia.
Florida u. come to a thiat, be heard at the bar. it should should hearing, attorney-general observations I have made these nature and concerning because information does of this objects application, what or in indicate order it is desired any particular specify way I felt at the court If should .to understand it pass. liberty bar, be heard at the to as an simply application by way argu- ment and and the proofs complainant pleadings be, answer would defendant, I should think the that the proper made advise thereon when was cer- would reasonably But be heard. I am not at so tain that the cause would to liberty information, not for the reasons I this view only sug- but because the with frank- attorney-general, gested, ness, becoming declared, bar, both has in his orally, printed desires far this. He brief, passes, what'he beyond thus court that he seeks to intervene made known cause in behalf of the and he States; United has. his explained intervention, and of the of the term effect of an understanding it, be, of the court that he is to order come into the allowing cause, not in subordination to the mode conducting one State or the other, or defence nor complaint adopted by acts, to the of their consequences mis- possible subject omission insufficient plead, pleading, admission pleading, or omission or but free to fact, ; either or both cooperate with forth all the both, either or bring points oppose whether to the case to his own law or judgment, according facts; for ex oritur jus.” facto this, this, Can be allowed, like with any thing consistently ? the constitution and laws of United States this 'it is In inquiry, determine answering necessary what States to (cid:127)would be the relation this controversy were thus admitted. In if the they my opinion, would thus become substantially really, party I I substantially really party, quite controversy. agree say court in with thinking ques- majority is not to be to' strict rules, decided technical according tion even viewed or consider As I light they impart. solely question it, the is one of constitutional law; intended to framed and the constitution was though operate connection those law and in our with equity systems existing in it time of its terms can adoption, at the country many understood interpretation correctly resorting law, I concede that, of those terms in those bodies yet are to look to the substance and we question, examining nature and not forms relation merely therefore, whether, I if the names; and, have inquired attorney- TEEM, DECEMBEE be admitted on the record in accordance general prayer information, the of' his United States will be substantially And, to this suit ? in the first I think there really party place, can no substantial distinction in this matter between the States and If what is done is *18 attorney-general; him a sufficient make the United States inis, substance The and effect, and in interests which legal he party. rights before court are interests United brings rights interests, States. He those as a rights trustee presents in to sue are vested not as ; whom they specially empowered lawby in his own name for the recovery something belonging to the but he acts as an government; coun- simply attorney at sellor law. The law suits postmaster-general empowered by bring in his own tracts made with him as name, courts con- United the head of a department; interested, deemed a though exclusively to the v. Bank of the Osborn The party controversy. States, 9 Wheat. 855. So an executor administrator, though he no beneficial interest in the cause action, deemed to the suit for the 4 party purpose jurisdiction. Cranch, 308; 8 Wheat. 12 Pet. these 668; But, similar cases the has, officer or executor law, the legal right of action vested in him. decided, On hand, has been that where repeatedly a law .a bond to be required officer, taken in the name of a public of individuals, but for the benefit as in case of bonds, sheriffs’ use the suit whose was not the person brought, in whose name it was was the to the obligee brought, party within v. meaning Strode, constitution. Brown et al. Cranch, 5 303; McNutt Bland, 1; v. 2 Huff v. How. Hutchin son, Ib. 586. 14 These' decisions much Iwhat maintain in go beyond this case. interests which desires to assert in this case are in no manner and for no vested purpose him, more than the and interests private in court are vested in the and coun- litigating attorneys sel whose names on docket, causes who árgue the bar. He is not what was termed, in the cases et al. of Browne v. Strode, and the other conduit, cases referred to, a just through whom is afforded a on contract name. remedy made in his He is a law officer simp y act government, empowered for the United in court. In such a case it does not to me seem to admit of a doubt, him, is done whatever in his name, will be though done the United States.
500
COUfeT.
v.
402,
Brailsford,
The case of
v.
2
was a bill
Dal.
Georgia
Telfair,
His
Edward
and com
Esquire,
Excellency,
governor
in and over the
mander-in-chief
State of
behalf of
Georgia,
the said State.” The
as of
sustained,
a suit
trial,
State,
and an
had
and a
at the
injunction granted
Yet,
bar
this court.
'in the name of the for the United attorney-general, madq United States will to this thereby party controversy, what is done is sufficient to provided constitute one a party to it. It remains to whether the inquire privileges claimed behalf the United attorney-general if conceded, will make them a to this controversy. It seems to me somewhat difficult to reason about so plain proposition. filed an infor- already mation, the interest of the United alleging States, and showing what it is and it arises. If how an order is thereon, made allow- him to those ing appear support allegations, States will on the' record their interest in this appear asserting will so controversy. They appear, enjoy they may aof to be heard proper allegations proofs, at the bar. The of the court must by arguments process be accorded to to obtain them in those modes and their'proofs, under those sanctions appropriated exclusively- taking evidence to be used in controversies. are to be judicial They oppose and to liberty pretensions assert and own, maintain their in a course of regular judicature; others, common with to be bound they, decree, which is to be the the. proofs, product allegations, as of those of the arguments, well two States of Florida and Georgia. If all this does not make the United States to this a party- it would it has difficult me to show controversy, *20 parties. constitutes, Under our a what system person jurisprudence, a to the ? record Is it party not'sufficient, if appears by record that he had a direct in interest the subject-matter suit; that he name, and not before the court in his own placed the name another, in his some by appropriate allegations, or claim in defence; he evidence introduced support legal or court; that claim that he defence, which was heard
502 heard his and what he counsel; his rights, presented them, to the court in were taken into consideration support the court in and that these decision; were making bound, bound, intended to be and in of law are point record, ? from this if decree All must appear States be to do has been for. allowed what prayed able The learned and his attorney-general, very argument, of some referred the court not only practice law, courts and to the but to the Roman modern England, civil law of the continent of intervention. Europe, concerning This differs, details, in the different countries. But practice examine, far as a third so comes own involved in the I have been able to who person to assert a of his the institution of after right is considered and controversy, expressly in the Code of denominated a The definition given party. borrowed Practice; Louisiana, from substantially “ Procedure, intervention, is: An or inter- French Code of a third to be is a demand 'which requires pleader, permitted person suit to become a in a persons, either the same plaintiff claiming thing, by joining it, or with the defendant connected with uniting -something in him, the claims of the or it lawful resisting plaintiff; it, both.” See requires where his interest also c. oppose Dalloy Intervention, Merlin, 16, Recueil, vol. voc. Rep. Di vocc. s. The clear. When the law English equally into a suit third as the between protect brought persons representative crown, and to some possessed rights, though he is not which do not persons, privileges belong private but he is treated as one. He is attended with a called party, if he it is considered as a bill, and does eopy appear answer, fails to. the bill is dicit; nihil taken and if he does appear 169, Pr. pro crown. Dan. Ch. against confesso 170, 531, 548. case, either iii admi- Indeed, I am not aware of equity statutes, third law, under is not considered and called a person ralty, who upon particular intervenes, ground party. is, that which a bind all decree in rem is held to persons, one make himself a an interest has a every having no- or arrest of cause, and that the seizure thing gives concerned, all proceedings, tice pendency enables, thus Rose v. Himely, them become In parties. rule: this familiar Cranch, Chief Justice Marshall states 277, all who vessel are Those on board a represent supposed them enables in a situation which it; interested in placed vessel, and cargo, take notice of against any proceedings *21 .503 Georgia. Florida interested, enables them to assert the right's cause heard, and all concerned is considered to it.” are properly parties in, And so Those who come even before the equity. mas ter, are, as Lord Redesdale Pl. says, (Mit. considered 178, 179,) to the cause in the subsequent proceedings. With brethren, for I cannot great respect my that the agree reasons advanced them the United States will be why not to the record are Those sufficient. reasons I understand be, that no decree made .will United States, against and that will not be allowed to attorney-general interfere in with the or of either' the any way pleadings, proofs, State of or Florida As to the first of these Georgia. reasons, it is cer- true, that no decree will be made tainly against form, but, or name if I ; understand tha opinion do, the and not consider as I brethren, majority my substance, they form, is to be looked in this case ; and that the only for inducement from the United States to be is, heard allowing that, nature of the all the world must necessa- controversy, the decree from rily the line of precluded correctness disputing fixed it. Whether the United States boundary shall or shall not be decree, named seem, therefore, would to be substantial, formal rather than since their and duties same, be the mil whether named or not. In either decree will thereon. operate conclusively as to reason, And the other that the the I be allowed to interfere or evidence of the pleadings States of Florida must with deference for the Georgia, say, ¿to better brethren, that seems me to be a re- opinion my which, striction while it still leaves the United States a to and to them of some of the deprives that extent fails to carry requires very principle out them to be heard at all. The to have bill, this case stated Florida in the so right to tant it in substance, its entire is a substantial and present impor- United States. If case un- right defectively there, stated the decree must be affected truly Georgia thereby, has the to insist that bill. the decree shall to the conform An United and full answer to the bill explicit is also material relied.on, know what is to be they may ' what adduced. proofs arguments necessary when witnesses, cross-examine power and-to to proofs except offered, has been deemed essential to the jus- administration tice. I ask, would what known respectfully principle our are the jurisprudence, United States to be of these deprived ? are admitted at all rights, contest the claims of Georgia cross-examine the witnesses of may If both Florida Georgia to their what States, and intrinsic except proofs, pro- be, can there latter reason why judicial priety cross-examine the witnesses except proofs (cid:127) former ? *22 I brethren, to a confess it With submission majority my which, of some me to a under to that rights seems deprive party essential, are deemed us, to other law known while all systems to be conceded to him which can .a
rights only are allowed party was felt the embarrassment which to the controversy, proves him a but does not out idea of over- the making party, carrying come the declare, it. to me to or even avoid It appears difficulty be admitted as a effect, should justice requires you party but, in order to make some distinction record; this between shall not of a enjoy other all parties, you yourself are to are, and the you enjoy party; particular of the to other proofs pleadings power excepting parties. to mind. Whether I consider This is satisfactory my United States to the relations of the substantial controversy, law in our or the positive analogous customary provisions countries, cannot avoid if and other I conclusion that own record to assert are admitted their rights they —to are involved in-this are, and hów contro- they show what they to course of them, maintain ; regular judicature, by versy the State of and argument, against Georgia; allegation, proof, to enable to do so; tiie court them to have process to favorable, lose if by decree profit by adverse — within the are a to this consti- controversy, meaning party this raises the tution of the United States: And in question, one, whether the is a constitution very grave per- my-opinion become a a mits the United States to between controversy party ? two this court extends, of the United States other among The judicial power States shall be to controversies which United things, controversies two more States —between —to states, or of and citizens other States where foreign and between State State commences foreign states. the constitution has In jurisdiction, provided distributing that, in all a State shall be a cases in which party, supreme all other cases before shall have In original jurisdiction. mentioned, court shall have appellate jurisdiction. supreme mentioned, One of the cases before is a which the United States I doubt has ever been entertained by am not aware 1854. United one, that controversies which the States are a under the of this come court in this appellate jurisdiction the constitution. Such is the distribution jurisdiction .clear the words constitution. So it was construed meaning 1789, which;' act the 11th congress, judiciary on the section, conferred circuit courts of cases in jurisdiction so which the States it has been admin- plaintiffs, istered tiffs day. v. Yale Todd, There was case com 1794, in this court in which is not but it is menced reported, the record, stated from Mr. Chief Justice in a note to Taney, United States Ferreira, the case 13 How. Of this — case note says: “ The case of Yale Todd was docketed consent in the su- to have been of and the court appears opinion preme 1793, act of war and the the of congress directing secretary to take their opinion upon question, In the them jurisdiction. early days gov- gaye ernment, original congress give original constitution, not enumerated in the court,- cases supreme and seems been entertained maintained jurists, by many decided case. the learned who Todd’s But discussion judges *23 n otherwise; mature examination has settled the question and more and doctrine, and it has been the established we believe now long that the to all have examinéd subject, assented who orig- is to the cases inal of this court in specified confined jurisdiction cannot it. In all constitution, that other congress enlarge .cases its must appellate.” power 1 Madison, decision this in Cranch, Marbury and, of the constitution: as stated 137, settled this construction in note, no has examined the now it. this one who questions subject . have, one, rules the constitution. The then, We two given by if a be a this court shall have State original jurisdic- party, be a this ; other, tion the that if the United States party, we are as shall have And jurisdiction. appellate clearly of a to from controversy taking original prohibited a are commanded to the United States is as we which take it if a State be party, Yet, a United States shall when the party. a to this con- on this record to become have been admitted to the a and the United States will both State troversy, clauses constitu- same And each these controversy. and the effect, require tion is to have its literal one would us from jurisdiction. pronibit taldng It is to be admitted that there is real conflict to con- is so constitution, these and our clauses plain duty effect, : 4s strue them that each have and full its This just
von. xvii. SUPREME' after When, no real attended several difficulty. enumerating and controversies to which distinct classes .cases extend, shall the United States constitution power
judicial between the to distribute that in- power supreme proceeds ferior the classes other. courts, it be understood must referring, throughout, before, enumerated, as distinct from cases each it when in all cases which a State shall be a And says: court shall it supreme original jurisdiction,” a means, in all the cases before in which State shall enumerated it. Indeed, so, terms, be a it when express speaks party. says cases of the other where appellate jurisdiction given. So that this which oh the original jurisdiction, .depends solely character of the those is confined to the cases in parties, enumerated, and those only. true, It course of leads reasoning necessarily to a conclusion the United States cannot be a judi- court. cial with State is far from But result confidence practical weakening my it has been in the correctness of the arrived reasoning at. The constitution of the States substituted govern- individuals, ment a confederation which acting place for the their collective and- States in sovereign capac- legislated ities. The existence of the under continued republican existence of form of essential to the government, made fourth of the fourth article national of the And the section government. the nation constitution power guarantee pledges form each protect every government; republican invasion, and, on of its exec- legislature against application This utive, whole towards domestic violence. conservative duty against forms no gen- each of exception parts on the eral the constitution confers proposition, and not the States. powers people, govern consti- is, therefore, There plan general nothing confers, tution, or in the nature objects powers state relations between the governments, general over judicial lead to find there expect grant power us the Union controversies between the government *24 com-, States, to several On the courts agency contrary, Union, or do States laws pel concede obey be claims, would naturally its or deemed States States because superfluous, impolitic; both superfluous individuals, who are responsible, directly. act through can only States, to the laws of and criminally, both civilly' States, which the courts supreme, States; and of the United all laws to enforce . TERM, 1854. irritation and because calculated provoke resistance, impolitic, and alarm. excite jealousy can be remembered, also, that a State sued must It only by has been consent. This consent own constitu- given its tion eases such as are there ; but described. having parties only character of the into particular controversy, enter, has consented to constitutes not a State an whieh consent, but it is the element in that sole essential of what sued description to. The has State consented to be Georgia agreed states, or one or more no foreign by by The State con- other sented to politic. Georgia person body more-States, as a one or stand defendant with joined state, a with citizens or of a State subjects foreign no other the one but with other than or person bringing there is in this Certainly, power existing no body politic. consent so as to embrace in it that enlarge government not, terms, it does extend. to which thing that because the I cannot consented Georgia agree of Florida, to be sued to the introduction the State thereby consented Georgia into the whose controversy any party so involved in the that the were rights bound, controversy of natural have that party upon principles justice, to make a decree. court, in order before if it be conceded that a third the first In place, party, State, one, sued being suing necessary capable party cannot would two between that the court to controversy a decree without of that make presence party, to be the that inference, seem to me in such a legitimate had not consented to be sued. con- the States case Having i sued, in controversies certain described sented having seem that which could not be it would controversy parties, carried not one to them was consent applies. aware, the other as I am far grants judicial potver So on the character of constitution, which the have depend Has it ever been into a been so construed. supposed of different citizens third not com- suit sued, could come or be because he to sue or brought, petent without whose a decree could awas presence necessary (cid:127) doctrine ever advanced, ? Has the been when not be made over suits between citizens the constitution gave jurisdiction States, it authorized that different implication, juris- thereby, by whose be extended so as embrace diction to every person so involved in that the were principles to be him heard ? natural required justice and a the case of a suit between a citizen of Florida Take in the course which it citizen of Georgia, appears *25 508 Georgia. i>.
Florida sue is not to or District, who of this competent capa inhabitant that such an interest sued, has ble of being before them decree between can make no parties the courj ever been it interest; has supposed without affecting the constitution and was there power granted any implied to make 1789 him a act of 11th section judiciary cases the court that in- all such conclusion been has the party, cannot act at all ? The is the settled con latter, I apprehend, of the for the clusion. The rule practice equity forty-seventh otherwise circuit that if who courts might persons provides, be made to the suit cannot deemed parties necessary proper court, so, oust because would jurisdiction joinder discretion, court, the court in its as to the before the may, parties such the cause without persons parties; proceed making in such eases the decree shall without prejudice is no assumes that there of the absent This parties. certainly case, make of the" out necessity implied power, arising to hear and them the cause so as or to them into parties, bring is to The court bind them them without parties. making over whom it distribute all the it between the can justice parties has but if it can do without presence jurisdiction; nothing or allow in, him is not bring necessary party, remedy act, and leave the in, to come but refuse him parties other means. This is terminate their declared dispute by Walker, 36, 14 and the earlier court in v. How. cases Hagan Ex’rs, Clarke’s Cr. 98; the same conclusion. Russell v. 7 lead to Roberts, 591; 3 Wheat. v. 8 Ib. Cameron v. Wormley, Wormley Randall, Mason, West v. 2 451; Banks, 188; Carneal v. 10 Ib. 130, of 195, 196; Barrow, ante, et al. v. term. Shields p. present this court has It is true there is a class of cases the circuit reason decided that when the jurisdiction attached, once it is not de of the character of the character entitled vested one of the parties losing the circuit sue, or him to be sued in him to subjected to a citizen who his death and administration being granted further, that when sue; would not have been competent no as in a suit rem, ejectment, judgment operated circuit lite, could pendente prevent change property, execution. its own court from over exercising jurisdiction 297; Mollan 2 Wheat. cases of Heirs v. Morgan, Morgan’s was there class. It 537, v. 9 Ib. of the first Torrance, defeat jurisdiction held that a did not domicile change Mathewson, Clarke v. which had the case of once attached. In but a contin -was a bill of revivor 164, 12 Pet. it held that once having uation that the jurisdiction original to enable the court and continued attached was complete, Dun In Clarke, subject-matter. 1, Pet. adjudicate that the was held circuit court had of a bill to of an execution on a enjoin levy judgment ejectment,, the land had been devised so that all were though citizens of the same State. This was that the devisee of the *26 upon ground land was be deemed mere representative plaintiff judg- ment, and that as to him the bill was not an suit, but a original on the side of the court to enable the court to proceeding equity execution; control own case of Harris according Hardeman, 334, 14 How. the same have been thing might motion on done the law side of the court. But the refused to take over the other jurisdiction the bill who land, had an interest or to decide the merits of the con- and confined itself execution of the troversy, staying until the merits could be in a suit in a judgment investigated court. state seen, be think, will I that none of It these cases rest at all on there over jurisdiction, a third ground by implication, are such as to whose make his in the cause party presence did, But if would fall far short of necessary. they they proving that such an can be made in this case. implication* The con- stitution is silent the introduction merely of a concerning third to sue or be not sued in the courts of competent person, Union, into a suit in the circuit but courts; it not silent con- controversies to which the' United States is a cerning It party. effect, declares, in that over such controversies this court shall not have such controversies for it makes its over original jurisdiction; jurisdiction and this, as has been appellate, settled, long controversies, excludes all over such jurisdiction even original from Madison, it. prevents congress Marbury conferring 137. To Cranch that there that when the say implication United States is a to an suit in this necessary party original here, be, can become a would they party my opinion, an extension of the of this court to a original case not described as to it, the constitution as but to a within we are whom forbidden to take such expressly jurisdiction. Nor do I find in the nature and circumstances of this case n such for the United States necessity making as would a foundation it must be lay presumption for the the constitution and consistent with competent and laws, io allow it to be done. This is a broad question, whether in the of this court exercise the original jurisdiction we to exclude all third they may obliged parties, though have the in- most and interests necessarily important here; volved in the arises suit. I question such apprehend.no
43* «. here, suit in do not doubt that in an I original equity between state, States, or between State and a two foreign individuals, or in a suit a State as complainant affecting consuls, ministers or other public any necessary ambassadors* party may plaintiff, in who is sued competent brought suit in or to sue the defendant in that this court. states, here other Thus, a state sue all citi- foreign states, arid this States and I believe zens includes inhabitants foreign its own citizens and except possible party, every District, territories, and the residents of this District and of aside United States. Setting deemed of moment in this territories, who cannot be great citizens of the State matter, bringing .and particular considers need no the constitution evidently pro- whose rights effect doctrine tection from practical government, to be confined to the States. found I maintain will be suit; and, to such cannot made my They of the of the is in accordance with whole plan judgment, as with particular provisions well government, should the judicial constitution concerning power, assume an adverse to a able to position not be interpose Besides, in this court. I do not State, judicial *27 to make the United States real in case necessity this any find A of law. court of a to the principles equity according party, have an interest who in a all requires persons equity generally rulé, it is a that when it But familiar suit to be made parties. interested, before the court all it is is impracticable bring interest as have a with to make such parties common enough are In such who those who are absent. absent, and of those who are the the present represent decree, of its court absent to make binding proceeds confidence that is done as the same justice with parties, 97, 112. Pl. Eq. were before the court. Story’s of Florida Now, is this case ? The interest what is,-to That interest are identical. United States as the the will as far the northward proofs line fixed boundary seeks is the true, that what Florida protection allow. It is State; and what the of its as sovereign rightful jurisdiction a landholder, its as is the of title United States desire protection But now held their of lands grantees. grantor Florida, the title both of the political jurisdiction coextensive from being States to land acquired Spain, have a common Florida, these with the two parties territory is, the the suit; and Florida of this in the interest subject-matter represent of a court competent equity, contemplation of land. States, as an owner interest of the United individual be true would certainly This case with still force the same rule applies and in greater opinion my suit State, whose must Florida is sovereign to. these parties. of its There is to the will legislature'. be conducted according motives or conduct for no room any unworthy any suspicion State; of that which it It iix management. high duty to vindi- will doubtless itself, discharged owes its claims to and make all cate its jurisdictional rights, good limits.' comes its true within Though territory run, that line carries line should question merely whfere it the and territorial sovereignty States. is a hand, landholder, On the other the United States whose one be affected line in rather title place may another. running of other than And so will the titles of hundreds land- this interest is the same holders in whose territory, precisely in amount. States, that of the United To kind, though it is for the that the justice, necessary purposes say as the should be lands, admitted proprietor into this to take care lest the State of Florida omit suit should evidence, seems me to be something by way pleading to an imaginary necessity only. yielding It is not that the United States has interest in alleged any as an land. this owner or Un- except grantor considerations, there the fed- political affecting questionably eral relations and connected with the extent of the United States in reference to which territory, has^a itself, direct interest. This is not obvious in important and, but is the constitution in various recognized by ways, to make others, the States any amongst compact oy prohibition of the United But the without consent States. of this suit is not to or territory object change limits ascertain their true and the United States has no and in States, but to actual boundary; interest, question except of a character done; should be an interest which justice to assist in this case warrant interposing government it, more than in other case in securing pending It is that the counsel the two court. make suggested evidence, as to and other matters respecting agreements and that the United States to be a ought *28 order to but it seems to me that if this were a. such: supervise this United a in- sufficient reason for the States party making in all to all cases between case, States; it would two apply one. to cases But if such are as be made as in this such arrangements likely counsel, mode respecting.the agreements con- States, be deemed a suit between two could ducting compacts clause between those within lOtli restraining Georgia, constitution, first section and congress, article not or must sanction them; this attorney-general, to reason does not seem be any satisfactory there officer Should why be connected with subject. Any agreement two States made line by hot boundary, fixing be would executed certainly sanctioned congress, by to decree court, which is rights existing a created and not new compact, valid without the assent of congress. ' overcome, to be But, if the could I objection that the as not should still be au- opinion attorney-genera, to the United States a to- suit in this make thority party no derived That officer from powers usage implied possesses of his office. His from name coextensive powers is defined to to be, with his and that law prosecute duty; all suits in the court in which and conduct supreme Stats, be at 93. It States shall concerned.” Large, belongs to be whom cases the alone to decide what United States congress may combs, and to the officers made designate party be made a This party. power congress has may the district exercised. power have conferred upon They attorneys for crimes offences delinquents to all .and prosecute cog- all nizable under civil authority Stats, shall be concerned. 1 United States actions which at Stats, 29, 1830, 5, the act May (4 Large, By § to solicitor of the instruct treasury empowered Large, 415,) the to all matters and district proceedings attorneys appertaining are a or interested; United States suits act, the of the same section attorney-general 10th But no is con- to ferred direct the solicitor. advise authority officer,to make the United law, upon any by any as a If the except prosecutor. plaintiff party individual, an in a suit United States be interested against officer of States to he the law the United thinks fit allow name, it, I know of no defend in his objection prosecute be the line and it is of often done. It may suggested, very the final decree in this be fixed will boundary concluded, it States will can of the United thereby them, do but be beneficial them no injury, may court has so, If jurisdiction, this cause. discretion, in its sufficient reason why congress, afford in be- should an authorize appearance by it does not States; half that but power enlarge what, no law has do or enable him to officer, my opinion, make the United States do, on him conferred power —to suit in this court. original *29 Georgia. Florida McLean concuss Mr. Justice to that am authorized say I in opinion. dissenting. Mr. Justice CAMPBELL the court. The the of attorney-general I dissent from opinion of has filed here to that the State Florida the court suggests the for a settlement of the bill State of Georgia, original against that the line He the represents between States.
boundary States have the United recog- is that claimed nized in the Florida of the land- sales, and other operations surveys, the of domain office, and the line of diminishes Georgia acres. thousand in Florida twelve hundred “ of interest and concern in consideration Whereupon, “ in said States,” the United he moves for leave of appear behalf, time' States, in such cause, and heard in of the United cause, of The condition and form court will order.” as the and an- that a bill made, is, in relation to the motion ulterior none filed, exists, swer have been but no issue been attained; course of the cause nor has there stages record; the court an examination motion to requiring any and terms, motion, so the as understood from its certainly “ words, cause and But the said appear premature. heard States,” behalf United. very indifferently explain is, that the motion. application significance “intervene,” “not as technical attorney-general may party; the one or other subordination not as party; joining or defence mode of the complaint to the the conducting adopted.by other, nor State or subject consequences one insufficient acts, or of any possible mispleading, pleading, fact, or omission of either omission admission plead, both; but with or both oppose cooperate either, forth all the bring points according whether as to the or fact.” his own law judgment, show that interests Though pleadings and of the Florida United States unite to maintain the same line, the declines her lest the con- adopt “ “ United States dition become de- might precarious,” on the discretion of Florida.” will the Nor pending attorney- file a bill for the States, that Florida nor “ general agree make hers, for, them defendants to that the court is not may ” the constitution to entertain an suit of empowered original the kind. Nor is for this motive intervention merely States have a interest, fiscal attorney-general suggests constitution be-.violated com- agreements may. “ record,” of- limits entered pacts thereby -altering of the States and the Union, structure “to the direct interests, and laws of the prejudice rights, United States.” These suggestions from possible injustice arising collusive of record,” entered compacts used judicial con- and in troversy this case no evidence of such and if record; such appears are heeded, suggestions the attor- *30 be, must an ney-general for constantly applicant leave to appear, “ as a technical but to some party,” employ oversight, super- intendence, or in suits between the censorship, Union in court; this and such a claim requires hew modes of surely, and that now is as proceeding, the claim. proposed peculiar The United States with the assertion of their appear, exemption from suit in this court —that the of the original jurisdiction- court does not embrace them as a Thus inde- party. declaring decree, and in an pendence process, suit pleading, original court, assail, the ask to assist or to at their they suitors pleasure, before decree in it, and mould the their case alle- legally evidence, without, gations, haps against, arguments, per- introduced their will. The is, of common law and principle chancery procedure commenced, suits are and defended to the prosecuted, by parties record in their and the own names intervention third per is unknown the sons, and we system; affirm this, the a where the case like above party confidently, a such case is without a beyond Quorr case Pr. 343. The of Pentland 2 Chitty’s precedent. trustee, C. was that of 249, a with a full My. ington, name under his suing assignor, assignment, power a decree with notice to the defendant. obtaining attorney, order to an for The"nominal the trus agreed delay, plaintiff order, tee for a and that he discharge petitioned might “ said: It is Cottenham conduct suit. Lord new perfectly in court is a suit between the suit The defendant equity. and the whom the contract was made. (assignor) for The effect arrangement, (assignor) plaintiff order has been made. Your case is present uating he him, whereas authorized on you carry against name, his he has entered into suit in arrangement If concurrence. I were make such an without question your on suit order, I right carrying giving you should defendant; plaintiff I should displacing against the record.” He “ there of-such an inter- asked: instance Is ask ?” The-eminent now ference on the you part “ like I have never seen case : admit I solicitor answered 94,C. 4 M. and in Drever v. So Manderley, present.” a suit where subject control order a third allowing person
DECEMBER, but he was not a to him assignment, belonged the same chan- was pronounced any proceeding, party by cellor to the court did not object The irregular.” “perfectly suit, but to mode enforcing to the subject It the suit. required to control assignee the attempt right, by to exhibit in bill, his practice according right by his own name. controversies which Marshall, Chief in describing Justice — extends, the United States says: judicial power “ and limited of well understood signification. The words are taken a for which had is a shape It parties of a within case To come judicial decision.” description assume a form must question legal in law and equity, decision. must be There forensic come into court judicial litigation reached its and bound who can be by ultimate decision process tri- admit whose rights power, by bunal to which 5 Wheat. are bound to submit.” Ap. cited cases attor- exception 16,17. supposed of this extent principle. only display pervading ney-general under the act of are rules instances quoted interpleading The Wm. vpuch- for tenants in IV.; ejectment, landlords defending bills of actions, real ees suits interpleader, warranty *31 others. for or themselves and against representative parties, arise, where a to in courts common law The cases referred as a or called obligation; primary right person having or to fulfil the defend obligation; the suit to to party law instance of a vouchee of the common and Lord Coke speaks ” “ ancient, and con- depending upon as. strange seeming Ins. in tinual, allowance,” (2 so, and inter- and constant 241;) an adverse are called suits, interest in parties having pleading a neutral have cess, as who may pr( parties, disengage owner, it to and desires relinquish subject and in cases the the ascertained, he shall be representative when determines, record, and acts to the court parties upon them. In this admit no made case on their undertake the suit behalf; nor will representation they either, admit of the court to treat them nor jurisdiction a are court,- suitor but contest the or authority party; and contest or either -intervention, ready positions strengthen seek, thus an Austrian anomalous they overlook control the to their and proceedings litigants own I find no in the direct aggrandizement. precedent the common law, course of nor in the straightforward statutes it, for I such a conduct. will examine the altering edents to briefly prec- we have been in cited, the codes procedure of those tribunals or apply jurisprudence imperial Rome. The French code pápal permits interposition of third in suits. An inter venor persons existing may guard interest, or future certain, or or one present conditional, contingent, collateral, or whether hold as pecuniary personal repre- is, sentative. But the stance's And the how and under what inquiry circum- ? is, answer his by propounding pretensions suitor, as a contest, inciting proofs, alleging recog- court, and to its nizing jurisdiction submitting decree. 4 Bioche de 590; Code, Die. Pro. Prac. 324. Louisa. § Cañada, La there are says, describing Spanish system, two suit and when necessarily a third parties (actor reo); every comes, ; he is called number litigant (tercero) and because he can or both, either oppose word is added and his act is opposer (tercero opositor), called third to aid another If he comes the same opposition. it, he suit as he finds and acts right, his treated as accepts if conjointly; adverse, are his suit is independent, paramount, is conducted as suits. original ordinary cause, The third opposer technically Cañada, Civiles, the decree. La Juicos really subject Nor do the ecclesiastical afford codes admiralty sanction to the motion. Their being largely rem, allow certain who claim persons present to the res, to interest, their the court jurisdic- propound ; tion and act the the suit, become persons parties codes, liable for costs then, entitled to The various appeal. differ in the time and before the mannér of court. parties calling The conditions of a suit are law, at the common general, settled at its institution, and new and independent not introduced in the courts of chan- subsequent stages. liberal cery are more in reference to the time of making parties and in the extent their both courts amendments. But in plaintiff unless he litis, not come the doviinus third persons fitted for it, amends the bill is or his proceedings, being civil, bill. But representative in.the admiralty, ecclesiastical courts, the of third power persons tp propound so is not dependent dispute subject the will of the the codes of prior But all procedure parties. this, unite in must to a come persons according regular *32 course procedure, citing authority accepting adverse to it decree defend, and to whatever yielding in- claim, in this may pronounce. The more than imperial stance, is suitor, for all the a submission faculties of without to and it one. restrictions- of But obligations supposed in the precedents pretension chancery support English motion. to to his intervene attorney-general according 517 1854. v. the crown class of the represented An important but ? He is how intro the" attorney-general; there queen’s ” as a technical to and record duced upon the decree. When the adverse bound the crown is to the is made attorney-general service of a party by prayer plaintiff, If he fails to bill and the copy. appear, dicit; answer, and will a decree and if he is a nil appears Pr, 175, 501, 8; is taken. Ch. 54 pro Danl. 729: Dick. confesso 1 Y. and J. 509. over the same there attorney-general And courts exercise suitor, other exercise over and he every authority more than other suitor to prosecute would permitted had no vexatious, which legal object. any proceeding merely Queen Prosser, The v. 11 Beav. Baltimore, of Penn v. Lord Hovenden cited, The cases v. and the cases Galway, Annesly, Attorney-General analogous Wheat, v. Bank Dolder England, Burgess (Cas. and Moll, 95; 617; 2 Sch. and Lef. 10 Ves. 332; Hard. temp. are instances of the 352; 1 Eden. Ch. 177,) application will the crown to be made a rule that require the name of the and that record, the comes as an actual under he attorney-general, obedient not in any illusory indeterminate, that, if the form; so claim of attorney- courts, States in the United extent general represent, of the intervention here is claimed, tenable, the manner inad missible. But do not admit that the I any corpo- character,
rate or the can be or that he introduced juridical record, name, official as an actor in his in a respondent duties, duties are and his suit. His strictly professional powers do those of an at law. Whatever he for the attorney States, a retained do ; United nor special attorney might his name, can the States in his nor appear agency, in cases where not be a party. they may I considered tMs concessions of the motion upon but the the foundation of the case argument, should not form principle lying the basis of a on the strength merely judgment ; such concessions hence I its examination. proceed to all States extends judicial cases power in law and and laws under constitution equity arising made treaties under authority; ministers, ambassadors, all cases affecting public consuls ; which the United shall controversies States; more controversies between two or party; ' states, State or the citizens thereof foreign citizens, and subjects. XVII.
VOL. *33 Georgia.
Florida “ ambassadors, &c., In all cases and those affecting in which be a State shall a court shall supreme original In all other cases before mentioned the jurisdiction. supreme shall have A was not jurisdiction in the appellate only.” .. of the constitution to alter even to the ex- design isting modify relations named in this sovereign parties article, to jurisdictions, their legal liableness by enlarging suit; was but its to erect tribunals to which purpose they resort for the determination suits which might they commence, or submit were might legally might voluntarily to, Thus, to their no subject conditions. according preexisting suit can be commenced against States, foreign ambassadors, states or ministers; nor public are they within the of the courts of the brought jurisdiction States to liable, that were any degree beyond they without this constitutional clause. The construction which of these allows as sovei exemption signs, sanctions, also, the title representatives, operate, the same States to mentioned in the same right, clause; and the conceded to jurisdiction reference them, in similar or identical expressed language. I aware, am that existence day early court, a a opinion a contrary expressed majority, 'for an a motion order suit a State, interlocutory against to examine the I established contro- propose .principle of which that is a versy, opinion part. discussion, While the constitution was under General Ham- “ said, it is in ilton eignty the nature of (Federalist, 81) sover- amenable to the of an suit -individual without and.contended,-“that consent,” its to ascribe to the federal courts, mere and in of a implication, destruction preexisting state which would governments, involve power such able.” would forced and unwarrant- consequences, altogether Madison, So, Mr. the vehement and replying pro- denunciations of Patrick in a careful phetic Henry, exposition clause, calmed the judiciary convention Virginia “it is not in power individuals to call assuring(it State court. The into the clause operation can have any is, it must be citizen, should wish to a suit bring court.” against in the federal And the late Chief brought Justice Marshall him, With supported, saying: respect State, disputes State and citizens another has been decried unusual-vehemence. I hope no will think State will be at the of a called bar gentleman that, federal It court. is not rational -to suppose sovereign shall before a court. The intent is to enable power dragged 1854. claims of recover individuals in other States I States. residing contend this construction is warranted the words.” Vir- 887, 405, Deb. ginia When these assurances from the most accredited friends of the suits in this court were new disappointed, by institution of government several against by individual *34 after the constitution, of the plaintiffs, shortly adoption strong felt, sentiment of was wrong corresponding indignation This was occasioned expressed. indignation by any appre-. hension fact that to the- States as consequences debtors, thp but by to be violated. The they supposed history no will bear In Chisolm i\ interpretation. Georgia, State instructed counsel to to the court a written present remon strance the exercise of and-protestation against jurisdiction, but not to the cause. The argue the. attorney-general opened ease “ of the He did not plaintiff by want saying: remonstrance him that Georgia, satisfy motion' was judgment to. Before that remonstrance read, he unpopular. had learned from the acts of another State that she too eondémned it.” ’ The court awarded a writ tire default of inquiry State, sustaining jurisdiction of the upon arguments utility, of the justice, safety delegation and of the power, diminution and abasement States wrought upon the Mr. constitution. Justice Wilson states the case “as'one of “(cid:127) uncommon He One of magnitude.” says: the parties is a be, State, certainly respectable, claiming Tire sovereign. to be question is, determined whether this State, so respectable, and whose claim soars so is amenable to high, the jurisdiction of the court of the supreme United States? This question, itself, important and will others depend more important still; be may resolved into perhaps one no ultimately less radical than Do the this: of the United people form a nation?” It is not difficult to perceive profound misconception relations the States to the Union which dictated liis judgment. The following of the year legislature Commonwealth of Virginia adopted resolution which contains a to the reply “ question: the Resolved that a unanimously, cannot, State under of the constitution United States, be made a defendant at the suit of individual or individuals any ; and that the decision federal supreme that a State in that placed situation, with and incompatible to the dangerous sovereignty independence individual States, as the same tends to a general consolidation of these confederated republics;” “ and instructed their senators and representatives to unite their utmost earliest exertions to obtain such amendments as will remove clause explain tp can any construed imply
520 decision that a answer justify compellable suit individual or individuals in by any States.” month after, 1794, senate One was moved January, Massachusetts,, eleventh Mr. Strong, adopt amendment constitution, constitution should not be declaring to authorize such suits. Various construed were made attempts both branches of to limit the congress operation amendment, but without effect. It was without accepted a letter, alteration of a vote of 23 to 2 in the senate, the house of to in received the assent of representatives, state ratified the amendment as legislatures. Georgia article.” her therewith, explanatory legislature “concurring the same to be the and true construction of just deeming the which the of the several judicial power by dignity secured.” Thus the States can constitu- effectively supreme tional the concurrent action and the state consent expressing congress, legislatures, unanimous, corrected the opinion supreme nearly cases, in these final intercepted judgments by declaring that the constitution should not be so construed as to allow them. of the court closes the volume which contains reporter *35 “ Chisolm, case writ was not by saying inquiry this executed; sued out and so that cause and all other suits States were at once from the records of the court swep against t amendment of The the constitution.” course of argu cases, excluded the ment which such jurisdiction applies with force to suits states equal States by foreign against Union, And the forbid considerations which suits against individuals, States indicated with clearness in the Fed such eralist, form the basis of the luminous and judgments masterly se in the cv of the Duke Brunswick English chancery, Hanover, 1, Ca. 1; Beav. 2 H. L. where the del King its icacy, practical jurisdiction, want of difficulty, danger value, forth, set and the conclusion fully announced “ that it is a rule, in accordance with the laws of general nations that a prince resident in dominions another is sovereign from the courts there.” clear jurisdiction of the It is exempt the constitution did nations, not law of and the abrogate any question whether the States consented suits without any reciprocal in whether the existence-of such right, power states could con-' foreign assist objects possibly any On the federacy. would such contrary, promiscuous grant its jeopard ? answer of Mr. Madison tranquillity peace .The “ convention is I do Virginia to. direct. positive “ that can conceive,” he ever be decided says, courts, an American and state, these without foreign consent, If is here made. they the consent parties. provision be tried the national tribunal. This The ought 'disputes with the law nations.” Deb. 391. To is consonant Virginia consent, it be that would be a congress necessary party. to the States The nature having jurisdiction regard made, considered, the can now can the United been inquiry suit or more The to a between two States? States’be mention a case. There before does not such were constitution to extend the federal convention propositions judicial-powers involve national “which peace harmony;” to questions “ controversies between United States and an individual ” “ form, to examine into and decide and in the modified State; claims of the United States and individual State constitution, None were into the to the last incorporated territory.” was The of this rejected. peremptorily jurisdiction cases to which the States are court over States different —the one materially original, respectively serious There was no nor encouragement, only. appellate countenance, to the to vest this court with jurisdic- propósition This members such cases. court is and its tion of organized extends with one Their influence parties. appointed of this their means of reputation the jurisdiction federal their habitual connection with the legislation powers, a sentiment in favor the federal authority. inspires naturally n These of bias known; causes were apprehensive operative were of influence consolidation and as the States of the overbearing we central can well understand government, why only a vote. as to modified pressed proposal article of the enumeration of the I repeat,- liabilities of States to* did not the constitution enlarge tribunals suits suits, brought, but where only provided might desire to commence. were to which subject, they already might between two or more suits does the clause Nor authorizing contradiction to this conclusion. afford confederation, were-then articles com- arise, to as the allowed occasion bined, appoint congress, might *36 now and to which all differences tribunals special disputes more or arise, or between two that hereafter subsisting, might cause or States, jurisdiction, concerning boundary, any whatever,” should be submitted. tribunals, and occasional Similar provisions special of the plan and formed part matters boundary, jurisdiction convention; when the close'of of the constitution till near
Florida out, and the over were stricken general jurisdiction those they to as well as other controversies elusion, this court. delegated con* My clause, is, after it is examination that between the States that one of controversies their' number can in this court its consent; be without and that explicit impleaded as to the and jurisdiction special, controversy those between the none States of the Union except ; embracing that court has no States, original jurisdiction and none of between them and an individual controversy ; have no that title to as a consequently., they appear record, to nor in undefined and uncertain relation to it. arises, whether the And now United States question can to concluded as their without a ought property, priv- and be heard, ilege appear by judgment upon submitted- two or more question boundary ? for its adjudication effect that Without assigning any judgment may rendered, or whether the United States anticipating reserved, I will that assume United States will be may estopped by no reservation of their judgment, pro- be made; whether, can and consider under such prietary rights circumstances, there is injustice. government Florida in this suit her claims—those involve highest sovereignty fulfil their chief its political obligations —-and If are claims affected the decree prosecution. such a of their individual it is so because incorporated as to have no sovereign separate exist- independent is the ence. of all the She representative proprietary rights n interests of her in their contest with another people sovereign. The United their over ter- resigning sovereignty of Florida ritory people, by recognizing govern- ment, relinquished their over this authority controversy, consented that their claims to the waste and un- proprietary lands should abide the issue which the State, in appropriated her wisdom of should attain. This fidelity, control sovereign was her modified accession to the Union. this, After was settled by negotiation the consent of was compact, necessary congress binding in other If it settled cases con- operation, compact. then this tribunal was make appointed tradictorily, determination. executive Nor do I title department perceive or the of anx- disturb expression court will be that this lured perform ieties or apprehensions do, alone these eondi- constitutional what congress *37 -523
Florida fulfilled. The existence of will not be honorably tions is a extent, in its testimonial to federal whole the the government, disinterested of the States of polity magnanimous to concession, which submits nor is the tribunal Union; rational adjustment controver- justice peaceful of the sies between least weighty sovereign proofs me, It seems to those dispositions. duty to come to the exercise of the the States court conferred, in same to exercise it to thé letter spirit; according submission; to exclude from it their suspicion, jealousies, but to meet interventions from any authority, with confidence. order, of the I from have filed the Dissenting every part for the dissent. reasons Order. have leave to adduce Ordered, that evi- attorney-general and to examine either written witnesses and file dence, parol, in order establish the claimed boundary depositions, States. the United for Attorney- leave to the motion General inter After decided, had Westcott and this suit been Mr. Mr. John vene in for Florida, of the State of moved leave to on behalf take son, examine and for out commissions to witnesses sun it for the case trial. orders prepare expedite dry — moved for was the orders following: Among the State of Florida being That (the consent hereby States thereto) given attorney-general may, of said use the name behalf the United complain- deem it United States ant he whenever may advisable commission, to sue out take testimony any pro- should said cause; notice thereof he cure proofs giving for as aforesaid.” or counsel said solicitors for counsel motion was opposed by This part and, State, was a motion State of behalf Georgia; the the to- a commissioner and made surveyor survey appoint and take testimony repon, premises dispute, to be the motion how court; duty stating particularly the counsel for the This motion was performed. opposed by of Florida. Westcott, Mr. The were questions complain- argued by for the' defendant. ant, and Mr. Badger, Chief Justice TANEY delivered the Mr. opinion court have considered the above motions. ®. Georgia. The motion authorize attorney-general and to take conduct the testimony, proceedings Florida, behalf assent of the State, is refused. must Each State conduct for itself. proceedings Whatever does in the case must be for States, and the name of the United States, and with refer- ence their interest or in this duty controversy. *38 The motion on behalf the State of to Georgia, appoint one more to the make persons and necessary surveys to court, is to the also overruled. Each report opinion is at to made, cause and liberty surveys maps prepared filed, such as the and select, or, if by person may can they one. And they these agree, appoint and jointly surveys them, the and will be proofs examined maps, applicable and at the considered court with the other by hearing, testimony. it the court do not deem advisable to But one or appoint more to make examinations, these
'persons as officers surveys court; ease and think the will be better before them brought each State act for itself. by leaving therefore, court, overrule The the motions; and, for the pur- the case for pose make the preparing hearing, following order:—
Final Order. several, On consideration of the motions filed yesterday by (cid:127) counsel, and of the counsel complainant’s arguments had, as well in of as same, thereupon ordered support against the. the said court that motions be' and by it is overruled. And further now here ordered by hereby court, that the said in said cause be allowed until the parties December, 1855, obtain, take, first file the Monday ' said to be adduced proofs, testimony respectively in evidence, that, on the of said cause ; and given hearing do, commissions, said so to parties respectively enable form, clerk, witnesses, usual be issued to examine upon of either application copy solicitor or accompanied by party, interrogatories, whereof has served been adverse counsel, such twenty days previous application, filed said order within cross-interrogatories may that the such adverse ana commissioner days twenty party; instance, if not commissioners in each agreed upon by counsel be named the chief justice respective that, court; or one of the associate justices forth- with, executed, clerk' do the return commission of any on n open' printed to be for the same, file the and cause tame said, use of parties. v. Bitchie.. The United .States be taken at also, exceptions testimony may And and, if then taken to the com- exceptions the final hearing; remove can opposite party testimony, petency decision, reserve the time court will give further proof, it. to the produce on bill, for cause be set final also, that said heating And adduced, so exhibits, answer, testimony, second proofs, replication, 1856, on admitted, January, filed, and Monday for thé continuance unless be then shown cause thereof. A. Ritchie.* v. Archibald Appellants, Stats, 1851, March, (9 Large, 631,) congress passed By an 3d of act of pri- commissioners to settle appointment made for the of a board of provision was California, case decided them to transfer of a claims and for the vate land district California, appeal. by way of court of the not a The, was under law board commissioners This was constitutional. of the suit constitution, judicial powers; but commencement invested original pro- there, regarded as an must be the district when transferred ceeding. evidence to before The district court could hear additional board of commissioners. *39 might claimant file section the act directed that the United States The 9th pointed sections and other out petition, praying appeal an the district a the to this was all passed an on the 31st changed by act .proceeding. mode of But Stats, 1852, filing transcript of a (10 Large, 99,) August, which directed should, appeal. operate as an ipso facto, the district the clerk of amounts, also, party. opposite notice This California, Solano, Indian, particularly of land in an to tract The title of Francisco forth. set according to the laws of
Although Indian, competent, he Mex- yet was an was Solano property. grant, at the time of the to take and hold real ico Mexico, 1821, government of Iguala, revolutionary plan adopted The country, an public and decrees of that and all the successive documents recognized Africans, Indians; inhabitants, Europeans, equality amongst all the whether 1824, colonization, citizenship of providing recognized the decree of for the Indians, to hold land. 1834, secularizing the mis- government passed laws for In 1833 of Mexico sions, them in belonging to public granted the lands under which authorities public same as other lands. manner lands, respect opinion expressed. In lands called Pueblo no to those of district court from the This appeal of California. northern district to land in Cal- claimants act congress respecting claimed, ifornia, Solano, Ritchie and the title of under whom so set forth in the opinion particularly those add reporter nothing topics. * Mr. sit in this cause. did not Justice Daniel