ice； the utmost care which could be taken in defining their separate jurisdictions would have been insufficient to prevent frequent collisions between those tribunals。 The question then arose to whom the right of deciding the competency of each court was to be referred。
In nations which constitute a single body politic； when a question is debated between two courts relating to their mutual jurisdiction； a third tribunal is generally within reach to decide the difference； and this is effected without difficulty； because in these nations the questions of judicial competency have no connection with the privileges of the national supremacy。 But it was impossible to create an arbiter between a superior court of the Union and the superior court of a separate State which would not belong to one of these two classes。 It was； therefore； necessary to allow one of these courts to judge its own cause； and to take or to retain cognizance of the point which was contested。 To grant this privilege to the different courts of the States would have been to destroy the sovereignty of the Union de facto after having established it de jure； for the interpretation of the Constitution would soon have restored that portion of independence to the States of which the terms of that act deprived them。 The object of the creation of a Federal tribunal was to prevent the courts of the States from deciding questions affecting the national interests in their own department； and so to form a uniform body of jurisprudene for the interpretation of the laws of the Union。 This end would not have been accomplished if the courts of the several States had been competent to decide upon cases in their separate capacities from which they were obliged to abstain as Federal tribunals。 The Supreme Court of the United States was therefore invested with the right of determining all questions of jurisdiction。 *e
＇Footnote e： In order to diminish the number of these suits； it was decided that in a great many Federal causes the courts of the States should be empowered to decide conjointly with those of the Union； the losing party having then a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States。 The Supreme Court of Virginia contested the right of the Supreme Court of the United States to judge an appeal from its decisions； but unsuccessfully。 See 〃Kent's Commentaries；〃 vol。 i。 p。 300； pp。 370 et seq。； Story's 〃Commentaries；〃 p。 646； and 〃The Organic Law of the United States；〃 vol。 i。 p。 35。＇
This was a severe blow upon the independence of the States； which was thus restricted not only by the laws； but by the interpretation of them； by one limit which was known； and by another which was dubious； by a rule which was certain； and a rule which was arbitrary。 It is true the Constitution had laid down the precise limits of the Federal supremacy； but whenever this supremacy is contested by one of the States； a Federal tribunal decides the question。 Nevertheless； the dangers with which the independence of the States was threatened by this mode of proceeding are less serious than they appeared to be。 We shall see hereafter that in America the real strength of the country is vested in the provincial far more than in the Federal Government。 The Federal judges are conscious of the relative weakness of the power in whose name they act； and they are more inclined to abandon a right of jurisdiction in cases where it is justly their own than to assert a privilege to which they have no legal claim。
Different Cases Of Jurisdiction
The matter and the party are the first conditions of the Federal jurisdiction … Suits in which ambassadors are engaged … Suits of the Union … Of a separate State … By whom tried … Causes resulting from the laws of the Union … Why judged by the Federal tribunals … Causes relating to the performance of contracts tried by the Federal courts … Consequence of this arrangement。
After having appointed the means of fixing the competency of the Federal courts； the legislators of the Union defined the cases which should come within their jurisdiction。 It was established； on the one hand； that certain parties must always be brought before the Federal courts； without any regard to the special nature of the cause； and； on the other； that certain causes must always be brought before the same courts； without any regard to the quality of the parties in the suit。 These distinctions were therefore admitted to be the basis of the Federal jurisdiction。
Ambassadors are the representatives of nations in a state of amity with the Union； and whatever concerns these personages concerns in some degree the whole Union。 When an ambassador is a party in a suit； that suit affects the welfare of the nation； and a Federal tribunal is naturally called upon to decide it。
The Union itself may be invoked in legal proceedings； and in this case it would be alike contrary to the customs of all nations and to common sense to appeal to a tribunal representing any other sovereignty than its own； the Federal courts； therefore； take cognizance of these affairs。
When two parties belonging to two different States are engaged in a suit； the case cannot with propriety be brought before a court of either State。 The surest expedient is to select a tribunal like that of the Union； which can excite the suspicions of neither party； and which offers the most natural as well as the most certain remedy。
When the two parties are not private individuals； but States； an important political consideration is added to the same motive of equity。 The quality of the parties in this case gives a national importance to all their disputes； and the most trifling litigation of the States may be said to involve the peace of the whole Union。 *f
＇Footnote f： The Constitution also says that the Federal courts shall decide 〃controversies between a State and the citizens of another State。〃 And here a most important question of a constitutional nature arose； which was； whether the jurisdiction given by the Constitution in cases in which a State is a party extended to suits brought against a State as well as by it； or was exclusively confined to the latter。 The question was most elaborately considered in the case of Chisholm v。 Georgia； and was decided by the majority of the Supreme Court in the affirmative。 The decision created general alarm among the States； and an amendment was proposed and ratified by which the power was entirely taken away； so far as it regards suits brought against a State。 See Story's 〃Commentaries；〃 p。 624； or in the large edition Section 1677。＇
The nature of the cause frequently prescribes the rule of competency。 Thus all the questions which concern maritime commerce evidently fall under the cognizance of the Federal tribunals。 *g Almost all these questions are connected with the interpretation of the law of nations； and in this respect they essentially interest the Union in relation to foreign powers。 Moreover； as the sea is not included within the limits of any peculiar jurisdiction； the national courts can only hear causes which originate in maritime affairs。
＇Footnote g： As for instance； all cases of piracy。＇
The Constitution comprises under one head almost all the cases which by their very nature come within the limits of the Federal courts。 The rule which it lays down is simple； but pregnant with an entire system of ideas； and with a vast multitude of facts。 It declares that the judicial power of the Supreme Court shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under the laws of the United States。
Two examples will put the intention of the legislator in the clearest light：
The Constitution prohibits the States from making laws on the value and circulation of money： If； notwithstanding this prohibition； a State passes a law of this kind； with which the interested parties refuse to comply because it is contrary to the Constitution； the case must come before a Federal court； because it arises under the laws of the United States。 Again； if difficulties arise in the levying of import duties which have been voted by Congress； the Federal court must decide the case； because it arises under the interpretation of a law of the United States。
This rule is in perfect accordance with the fundamental principles of the Federal Constitution。 The Union； as it was established in 1789； possesses； it is true； a limited supremacy； but it was intended that within its limits it should form one and the same people。 *h Within those limits the Union is sovereign。 When this point is established and admitted； the inference is easy； for if it be acknowledged that the United States constitute one and the same people within the bounds prescribed by their Constitution； it is impossible to refuse them the rights which belong to other nations。 But it has been allowed； from the origin of society； that every nation has the right of deciding by its own courts those questions which concern the execution of its own laws。 To this it is answered that the Union is in so singular a position that in relation to some matters it constitutes a people； and that in relation to all the rest it is a nonentity。 But the inference to be drawn is； that in the laws relating to these matters