giving construction to the laws and Constitution are especially to be considered; and when these fail us, we must resort to the principles by which they have been governed.'

Cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction embrace generally all cases growing out of the transportation of passengers and goods upon the high seas and on the navigable waters of the United States, including particularly maritime contracts, torts, etc. The cases are quite fully enumerated by Mr. Justice Clifford as follows: 22

"Wide differences of opinion have existed as to the extent of the admiralty jurisdiction; but it may now be said, without fear of contradiction, that it extends to all contracts, claims and services essentially maritime, among which are bottomry bonds, contracts of affreightment and contracts for the conveyance of passengers, pilotage on the high seas, wharfage, agreements of consortship, surveys of vessels damaged by the perils of the seas, the claims of material men and others for the repair and outfit of ships belonging to foreign nations or to other states, and the wages of mariners; and also to civil marine torts and injuries, among which are assaults or other personal injuries, collision, spoliation, and damage, illegal seizures or other depredations on property, illegal dispossession or withholding of possession from the owners of ships, controveries between the part owners as to the employment of ships, municipal seizures of ships, and cases of salvage and marine insurance."

§ 28. Controversies to which the United States is a party. The United States may be plaintiff in a suit, and by its consent, but not otherwise, 23 may be sued as defendant. This clause covers causes to which the United States is a party either as plaintiff or as defendant. As

22-Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S. 68. 23-United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196.

plaintiff the United States has ordinarily the same civil remedies as individuals have, but it may be sued only in such courts and in such cases and under such conditions and regulations as Congress may prescribe.24 The United States has consented to be sued in certain cases in the Court of Claims, which has jurisdiction of such suits.25

But the United States has never consented to be sued in the courts of a state.26 The question whether a suit is in legal effect a suit against the United States is not always determined by the fact that it is not named as a party on the record, but rather by the effect of the judgment or decree that can be rendered. Thus a suit against an officer of the United States may be in effect a suit against the United States.27 And no officer of the United States can waive its immunity from suit.28

Suits between United States and a state. The United States may sue a state without any further consent on the part of the state than the latter's acceptance of the Constitution.29 But the United States cannot be sued by a state without its special consent.30 Suits may be brought by a state against the United States in the Court of Claims, the United States having consented to such suits.31

And, in general, a state may maintain a suit against the United States with its consent expressed by act of Congress.32

§ 29. Controversies between two or more states. Many such controversies between states have arisen, usually in connection with disputed boundaries, as for example, the cases of Virginia against West Virginia,33 of Louisiana against Mississippi,34 Washington against Oregon,35 and others. A number of suits on other subjects have also been brought, for example, the case of Missouri against Illinois 36 to restrain the pollution of the Mississippi River, or of South Dakota against North Carolina 37 on bonds of the defendant state, or of Kansas against Colorado 38 to restrain the diversion of the Arkansas River, or of Virginia against West Virginia 39 for an apportionment of the state debt.

To come within the meaning of this clause the controversy must be one arising directly between the states and not a controversy in vindication of the grievances of particular individuals. Private persons will not be permitted, under this clause, to make use of the name of a state as nominal plaintiff in order to prosecute their claims against another state.40

But where a state is the bona fide holder of a claim against another state, it may sue thereon, notwithstanding such claim was received as a gift from a private individual who made the gift in the expectation that the donee would sue on the claim and that such suit might inure to his benefit as the owner of other like claims.41

33-11 Wall. 39. 34-202 U. S. 1.

35-211 U. S. 127.

36-200 U. S. 496.

37-192 U. S. 286.

38-206 U. S. 46.

39-206 U. S. 290; 220 U. S. 1; 222 U. S. 17; 234 U. S. 117; 238 U. S. 203.

A decree has been rendered in this case in favor of Virginia for $12,

393,929.50, including principal ($4,215,622.28) and interest ($8,178,307.22), with interest at five per cent. per annum until paid. Virginia v. West Virginia, 238 U. S. 202.

40-Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1. See, also, New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U. S. 76.

41-South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U. S. 286.

§ 30. Controversies between a state and citizens of another state. This clause clearly includes suits by a state against a citizen of another state.42 And by its terms it seems to include also suits against a state by a citizen of another state, and it was so held in 1793 in the celebrated case of Chisholm v. Georgia in which the Supreme Court entertained a suit by a citizen of South Carolina against the state of Georgia.43 This decision led to the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment, which provides that

"The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state."

Since the adoption of this amendment no state can be sued by a citizen of another state without its consent, and the fact that the case involves a federal question does not give the federal courts jurisdiction of such a suit.44

The determination of the question "what constitutes a suit against a state?" within the meaning of this amend

42-See Texas v. White, 7 Wall.

700.

43-2 Dall. 419. The decision in this case that the court had jurisdiction and that judgment by default should be entered against the state unless it should appear and show cause to the contrary by the first day of the next term, was pronounced February 18, 1793. Two days later the Eleventh Amendment was proposed in Congress and was acted upon by Congress in the following December. The amendment was declared adopted January 8, 1798. In February Term, 1794, judgment was rendered by default in favor of the plaintiff, but was

'never executed. In February Term, 1798, after the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment, the court refused to exercise any jurisdiction in any such cases, "past or future.' Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall.

378.

The case of Chisholm v. Georgia was the first important case to come before the Supreme Court and the only case of importance during the brief term of John Jay as chief justice. The decision was reviewed and questioned in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1. See also, The Federalist, No. 81.

44-Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 378.

ment is frequently a matter of no little difficulty, and numerous cases involving this question have arisen.45

It is to be noted that the federal jurisdiction does not extend to controversies between a state and its own citizens unless a federal question is involved.46

Nor can a state be sued in a federal court by one of its own citizens even on a federal question unless it has consented to such suit.47

§ 31. Controversies between citizens of different states. This is one of the most important classes of cases within the federal jurisdiction. The object of placing these controversies within the jurisdiction of the federal courts is plainly to secure their settlement by an impartial tribunal.48 And the jurisdiction so conferred upon the national courts, cannot be abridged or impaired by any statute of a state.49

To bring a suit within the federal judicial power under this clause, it is sufficient that the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states. If this requirement of diversity of citizenship is satisfied, it is immaterial what is the subject matter of the controversy, or whether the suit involves questions of federal or of state law.

The Constitution does not require that any particular amount should be involved in the controversy in order to give the federal courts jurisdiction of the cause. Congress, however, has never provided for the complete exercise of judicial power over this class of causes. By the Judiciary Act of 1789 jurisdiction was conferred only where the amount in controversy exceeded $500, exclusive of interest and costs. By the act of 1887 this amount

45-See 9 Fed. St. Ann. 362-374. See also, the title "States" in Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure.

46-Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Co., 10 Wall. 553.

47-Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.

48—Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20, 34; Barrow Steamship Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100.

49-Barrow Steamship Co. V. Kane, 170 U. S. 100.