$ 148]

International and Admiralty.

233

to the federal courts, should it see fit to do so (Börs v. Preston). Suits by foreign ambassadors or public ministers or consuls may be brought in the Supreme Court; or as individuals they may sue in any other court having general jurisdiction of the case.

148. Admiralty Cases.

The extension of the federal judicial power "to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction" can better be understood if it is stated that in England admiralty courts have jurisdiction of matters on the high seas which are beyond the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. The purpose of giving such a jurisdiction to the federal courts was to enable them to exercise the powers of admiralty courts in England. But as a matter of fact the jurisdiction has been extended by construction, so that it is broader in scope than that of the English admiralty courts. Admiralty cases are those brought for breaches of contract relating to maritime affairs, or for torts committed on the high seas or other waters within the admiralty jurisdiction, or for the enforcement of the peculiar liens recognized by courts of admiralty. The admiralty law is distinct in its rules and methods. of procedure from both the law and equity systems, and as a separate branch of the law, it is exclusively administered in the federal courts; that is to say, an admiralty case cannot be tried in the state courts. It is true, the state courts may give the ordinary legal or equitable relief between the parties as to subject-matter which might have been the basis for a proceeding in admiralty; but an admiralty case as such cannot be tried save in the federal courts upon which admiralty jurisdiction is conferred by acts of Congress.

In England the admiralty jurisdiction is limited to the high seas and navigable waters within the ebb and flow of the tide; but this limitation has been deemed inapplicable in this country, because of the existence of lakes and rivers capable of navigation, and over which extensive foreign commerce is conducted, in which the tide does not ebb and flow. As now construed, the admiralty jurisdiction extends not only over the high seas, but over all of the navigable waters of the United States which

constitute avenues for foreign or interstate commerce (The Steamboat Magnolia). Thus, the Great Lakes, the navigable rivers, such as the Mississippi and the Hudson, and even the canals, are within the admiralty jurisdiction, and the powers of the admiralty courts extend to the determination of cases relating to maritime rights or transactions on all such waters.

149. Cases to which the United States is a Party. The provision giving to the federal courts power as to controversies to which the United States shall be a party" simply authorizes Congress to provide for trial in the federal courts of suits brought by or against the United States. Prosecutions for offences committed against the laws of the United States are of this character, as are also suits by the United States government to enforce penalties and forfeitures for violation of the revenue or postal laws, or similar statutes. A suit against a federal officer and his sureties to recover a penalty under his bond for breach of duty would come within the same description. As plaintiff the United States may also under this provision sue in the federal courts to recover damages for breach of contract, or to enforce any other legal obligation.

It is important to notice in this connection that a sovereign government cannot be sued in its own courts, and it was evidently not the intention of this clause of the constitution to change the rule in this respect as to the United States. Therefore, a suit against the United States cannot be maintained, even in the federal courts, unless under some express authority. The rule is this that the ordinary statutory provisions conferring jurisdiction on the courts in certain classes of cases do not authorize suits against the United States, for it is to be presumed that a sovereign government will do justice without the compulsion of a court; and that, moreover, it was not intended to give to any tribunal a coercive power with reference to the government itself.

Yet, as it is within the legislative authority to provide for the payment of just claims against the government, Congress may, if it sees fit, authorize such claims to be prosecuted in courts

§ 150] U. S. and States as Parties.

235

specially designated for that purpose, and, accordingly, it has created a Court of Claims in which persons claiming that the United States is justly indebted to them may prosecute their demands, and have the justice of such demands legally investigated. It has been further especially provided by statute that the general courts of the United States may exercise much the same jurisdiction as to claims against the government as was conferred upon the court of claims. But these special provisions authorize only the determination by the court of claims, or other court having the same authority, of the legality of a claim; they do not authorize the enforcement of any judgment which may be rendered against the United States, and it still remains for Congress in its discretion to appropriate the money necessary to pay such judgments.

The immunity of the United States from suit in its courts does not extend to its officers or agents claiming to act under its authority (United States v. Lee). If, as matter of fact, they act without authority, they may be sued in the federal or state courts, and held liable as individuals. And the validity of the authority which they claim to be exercising as officers or agents of the federal government may be investigated. The executive or legislative department cannot, by action in excess of its authority, confer upon any officer or agent the power to violate the law.

150. Controversies between States.

The states are independent of each other, but, since they are not capable of negotiating with each other, or having foreign. relations with reference to each other, it is provided that controversies between them may be determined in the federal courts. Such controversies have usually been as to boundaries.

As will be noticed in the next section, a state may not be sued, even in a federal court, by its own citizens or the citizens of another state or of a foreign government for the purpose of compelling it to pay its debts; but if one state has a claim for money against another, the controversy relating to such claim is a controversy between states, bringing it within the

scope of the federal jurisdiction. Thus, where one state was the owner in its own right of bonds of another state, it was held that suit on such bonds could be maintained by the one state against the other in the federal courts (South Dakota v. North Carolina).

151. Controversies between a State and Citizens of

another State.

Where a state has a claim of any kind against a citizen of another state, it cannot usually prosecute that claim in its own courts, because its courts cannot get jurisdiction of a nonresident except by his voluntary appearance; and the state ought not to be compelled to submit its case to the courts of the state in which its debtor resides, because it is not consistent with the dignity of a state that it be compelled to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the courts of another independent state. Provision is therefore properly made for the trial of such cases in a federal court.

But the general rule already announced with reference to the United States, that a sovereign government should not be subject to suit, is applicable also to the sovereign states. could not have been intended that a state government should be subject to suit by private individuals. And this principle is expressly enunciated in Amendment XI in which it is provided 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, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.”

Even if the controversy is one arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, and for that reason would otherwise be within the jurisdiction of the federal courts, such jurisdiction is excluded by Amendment XI if the suit is by private individuals or corporations against a state, and the same reasoning applies to a suit against a state by its own citizens, for, although this class of cases is not expressly covered by the Eleventh Amendment, it is excluded from the jurisdiction of the federal courts by the general rule that a sovereign state cannot

Cases of Diverse Citizenship.

§ 152] 237 be sued except by its own consent (Hans v. Louisiana). Whether the citizens of a state may sue the state in its own courts will depend entirely on the laws of the state, and such authority has in some cases, although not generally, been granted. The conclusion to be drawn is that the jurisdiction of the federal courts does not extend to suits against a state, no matter what be the nature of the subject-matter, unless the suit be by another state of the Union or by a foreign state, or by the United States.

152. Controversies between Citizens of Different States.

The jurisdiction of suits in which the party or parties on one side are citizens of a different state from that of the party or parties on the other, furnishes the larger part of the civil business in the ordinary federal courts. The object of the provision with reference to such suits is to secure to the parties in such cases a trial before a court free from any possible prejudice or bias on account of the citizenship of the parties on the one side or the other.

To determine the citizenship of a party, in order to ascertain whether the case is one involving diverse citizenship as described in the constitutional language, the test now applied is that of the Fourteenth Amendment. Prior to the adoption of that amendment there may have been some uncertainty as to the test of citizenship in a state; but now the simple rule is to ascertain whether the party in question is a citizen of the United States either by birth or naturalization, and, if so, whether he has a legal residence in the state of which he claims to be a citizen. It is to be noticed that by the language of the constitution the controversy must be between citizens of different states, that is, the party on one side must be a citizen of a different state from that of which the other is a citizen. It follows that controversies between a citizen of one state and a citizen of the United States having his legal residence in the District of Columbia or in a territory, is not within that class of cases, for it is not a controversy between citizens of different states, the District of Columbia not being considered a state in