dge Marshall,
of the extra-judicial part of his opinion; and all was extra-judicial,
except the decision that the act of Congress had not purported to
give to the corporation of Washington the authority claimed by their
lottery-law, of controlling the laws of the States within the States
themselves. But unable to claim that case, he could not let it go
entirely, but went on gratuitously to prove, that notwithstanding the
eleventh amendment of the constitution, a State could be brought, as
a defendant, to the bar of his court; and again, that Congress might
authorize a corporation of its territory to exercise legislation within
a State, and paramount to the laws of that State. I cite the sum and
result only of his doctrines, according to the impression made on my
mind at the time, and still remaining. If not strictly accurate in
circumstance, it is so in substance. This doctrine was so completely
refuted by Roane, that if he can be answered, I surrender human reason
as a vain and useless faculty, given to bewilder, and not to guide us.
And I mention this particular case as one only of several, because it
gave occasion to that thorough examination of the constitutional limits
between the General and State jurisdictions, which you have asked for.
There were two other writers in the same paper, under the signatures of
Fletcher of Saltoun, and Somers, who in a few essays presented some very
luminous and striking views of the question. And there was a particular
paper which recapitulated all the cases in which it was thought the
federal court had usurped on the State jurisdictions. These essays will
be found in the Enquirers of 1821, from May the 10th to July the 13th.
It is not in my present power to send them to you, but if Ritchie can
furnish them, I will procure and forward them. If they had been read in
the other States, as they were here, I think they would have left, there
as here, no dissentients from their doctrine. The subject was taken up
by our legislature of 1821-22, and two draughts of remonstrances were
prepared and discussed. As well as I remember, there was no difference
of opinion as to the matter of right; but there was as to the expediency
of a remonstrance at that time, the general mind of the States being
then under extraordinary excitement by the Missouri question; and it
was dropped on that consideration. But this case is not dead; it only
sleepeth. The Indian Chief said, he did not go to war for every p