Untitled - the Digital Library of Georgia

GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS 387
and to emphasize in a serious clash with the United States Government
her retention of every attribute of sovereignty which she had not in
express terms surrendered to the Federal Government.
This forensic battle—for such it was—grew out of an issue involved
in the celebrated case of Chisholm versus Georgia before the Supreme
Court of the United States. At the August term of the Supreme Court
in 1792, an action was brought by a Mr. Chisholm, of South Carolina, to
recover a sum of money by suit against the State of Georgia.* Due
notice was served by the United States marshal upon the State of Geor
gia, through both her governor and her attorney-general. But these
officers of the state refused to recognize the legality of the summons.
They held that Georgia as a sovereign state could not be sued by a
citizen, and consequently there was no legal representative to appear
for her before the Supreme Court when the case was called.
Mr. Edmund Randolph, who was then attorney-general of the United
States, moved a postponement of the case until the February term, 1793;
and it was so ordered. At this time a written remonstrance was filed
by the State of Georgia, protesting against the exercise of jurisdiction;
but in accordance with express instructions the lawyers presenting this
remonstrance made no arguments. Mr. Randolph, in requesting the
court to enter judgment against the State of Georgia, launched into a
profound discussion of the American system of government. He argued
'-.hat while the states were sovereignties they might combine in govern
ment; that they had actually so combined in the Articles of Confedera
tion ; that, when these had proven ineffective, they had framed a Federal
Constitution establishing a new order of things. Said he, in discussing
further our form of government: "It derives its origin immediately
from t.\e people and the people are individually under certain limitations
subject to the legislative, executive and judicial authority thereby estab
lished. The States are in fact assemblages of these individuals who are
liable to process. I hold it therefore no derogation of sovereignty in
the States to submit to the Supreme Judiciary of the United States."
The court sided with Mr. Randolph.
Chief Justice Jay and Justice Wilson both made strong arguments
for the :.iational character of the system, established by the Federal
Constitution in 1787. But Justice Iredell rendered a dissenting opinion,
in which he supported the views held by Georgia's state officials. Said
he: t " Every State in the Union, in every instance where its sovereignty
has no', been delegated to the United States, I consider to be as com
plete!;' sovereign as the United States are in respect to the powers sur
rendered. The United States are sovereign as to all the powers actually
surrendered. Each State in the United States is sovereign as to all the
rowers reserved. It must necessarily be so, because the United States
have no claim to any authority but such as the States have surrendered
to them." Since the power to try suits against .a state had not been
expressly given to the general government he argued that such a power
was not possessed by the Supreme Court of the United States.
* "United States Supreme Court Reports," Dallas, II, pp. 419-480; "Georgia and
State Eights," IT. B. Phillips, p. 24.
t '' Georgia and State Eights," TJ. B. Phillips, p. 25.