History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Volume 4Smith, Joseph, Jr.
History
History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Volume 4
Smith, Joseph, Jr.
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Smith, Joseph, Jr., 1805-1844
This suggestion to take their case to the United States Courts was
never acted upon by the Saints, nor does it appear in what manner it
would have been practicable for them to do so. True it is expressly
provided in the Constitution that "The Judicial power of the United
States shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under this
Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or
which shall be made, under their authority; to controversies between
two or more states; between a state and citizens of another state;
between citizens of different states; between citizens of the same
state," etc. [13] The case of the Saints would fall either under the
clauses in the above quotation respecting controversies arising between
a state (Missouri) and citizens of another state (the Saints, now
citizens, of Illinois); or "between citizens of different states," the
Saints, citizens of Illinois, and their former persecutors, citizens of
Missouri. In considering the question under the first clause it must be
remembered that the eleventh amendment to the Constitution (declared in
force 1798) provides that {XXVIII} "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." It is
held that "the power as well as the dignity of a state would be gone if
it could be dragged into court by a private plaintiff." [14]
The Supreme Court in the case Chisholm _vs_. the State of Georgia, had
decided (1793) that an action did lie against the State of Georgia at
a suit of a private plaintiff. The state however refused to appear,
whereupon the Supreme Court proceeded, a year later, to give judgment
against her by default in case she should not appear and plead before
a day; whereupon there arose such a storm of protest, not only in
Georgia, but in the other states as well, that the eleventh amendment
was adopted exempting a state from being sued in the courts of the
United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens subjects
of any foreign state. Moreover, states are not suable in any event
except with their consent; [15] and if a state waive its immunity, it
may attach any conditions it pleases to its consent. [16] Under these
circumstances it is not surprising that the Saints never attempted to
bring Missouri before the United States courts. They could only have
planted suit against the state by its consent, and if she consented,
then under such conditions as she might be pleased to attach to that
consent. Moreover, the Saints had the best of reasons for believing
that Missouri would never consent.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account