[288] _Ex parte_ Siebold, 100 U. S., 37 (1879). Thus canals are highways of commerce and subject to “regulation” by Congress. The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U. S., 17 (1903); _Ex parte_ Boyer, 109 U. S., 629 (1884). [289] Stanley _v._ Schwalby, 162 U. S., 255 (1896), where the cases are cited. [290] Cohens _v._ Virginia, 6 Wheaton, 414 (1821). [291] United States _v._ Texas, 143 U. S., 621 (1892). The doctrine also in South Dakota _v._ North Dakota, 192 U. S., 286 (1904). [292] Ames _v._ Kansas, 111 U. S., 449 (1884); the “party” may be a State (including its corporate subdivisions), or a natural person (or persons), or an artificial person (a corporation). [293] Wisconsin _v._ Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U. S., 265 (1888). [294] Hans _v._ Louisiana, 134 U. S., 1 (1890). The history of the Eleventh Amendment includes the entire record as to suits against States. The principles involved may be found as discussed by Hamilton in _The Federalist_, No. lxxxi; by Marshall, Madison, Mason, and Henry, in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 3 Elliott’s Debates; in Mr. Justice Iredell’s dissenting opinion in Chisholm _v._ Georgia, 2 Dallas, 419; and a special history of the Amendment in the author’s _Constitutional History of the United States_, ii., 264–293. The Eleventh Amendment overruled the decision in the Chisholm case. As to suits against a State by its own citizens see Railroad Co. _v._ Tennessee, 101 U. S., 337 (1879). The principle here is that the sovereign may assent to being sued by its own citizens,—an assent declared by the State constitution, but available by the citizen only according to acts of the Legislature. The privilege (if it exists) is statutory. But suit against an officer, or agent of the State,—or of the United States, is not barred if that officer exercises a ministerial function; such suit is not a suit against the sovereign (United States, or State). See U. S. _v._ Lee, 106 U. S., 196 (1882); Cunningham _v._ Macon & Brunswick R. R. Co., 109 U. S., 446 (1883). [295] Judiciary Act, 1789, 1888 (and so amended.) [296] The Ohio and Mississippi R. R. Co. _v._ Wheeler, 1 Black, 286 (1861). Hooe _v._ Jamieson, 166 U. S., 395 (1897). [297] Martin _v._ Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheaton, 304 (1816); opinion by Mr. Justice Story; this case remains the leading case on the appellate jurisdiction of federal courts. The appellate jurisdiction of the courts is discussed by Marshall in Marbury _v._ Madison: “The essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction is that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that cause,” _Ex parte_, Watkins, 7 Peters, 568 (1833). [298] Gaines _v._ Fuentes, 92 U. S., 10 (1875). Security Mutual Life Insurance Company _v._ Prewitt, 202 U. S., 246 (1906). [299] Whitten _v._ Tomlinson, 160 U. S., 231 (1895). But as to conflicting jurisdiction of State and federal courts see Riggs _v._ Johnson County, 6 Wallace, 166 (1867).