a prominent New York editor for criminal libel. The ground assumed before a Federal tribunal was that a newspaper is published in any State, city, or district in which it circulates.

In Article V. it is provided that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." It had been largely held that this exemption applied to accused persons, but the Supreme Court of the United States, in January, 1892, decided that it also applied to witnesses. In a case before the United States Circuit Court, Judge Gresham presiding, Charles Counselman, a witness, refused to answer whether he had received special railroad freight rates in violation of the Inter-State Commerce law. Judge Gresham held the refusal as contempt, and the Supreme Court overruled his decision.

Article VII., which is both declaratory and restrictive, ordains that "in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reëxamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law."

Article VIII. prohibits excessive bail and fines and cruel and unusual punishment, whether by the governments of the several States or the United States.

Article IX. declares that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained. by the people." And Article X. declares that "The powers not delegated to the United States by this Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people." Delegated powers, which are never permanent, are necessarily enumerated; undelegated or reserved powers are permanent, and need no enumeration. Enumerated powers are to be strictly construed. Ungranted powers are the residuary mass of natural, legal, and political rights.

Article XI. is purely judicial. It abrogates the original amenability of sovereign States to private suit. Article III., section 2, of the unamended Constitution says: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases of law and equity between a State and citizens of another State,

or between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens, and subjects." The amendment of 1798, which is restrictive and mandatory, declares 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 State, or by citizens or sub

jects of any foreign state." "The inhibition," says Kent, "applies only to citizens or subjects, and does not extend to suits by a State, or foreign states or powers." Note the decentralization: "one of the United States."

Are there examples of State exemption?

Yes. In Chisholm vs, Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered judgment against the State. Such was the public alarm that the Supreme Court, in Hollingsworth vs. Virginia, 3 Dall. 378, decided that the amend ment related back so as to dismiss every suit which had been instituted against a State. In the Iowa original package decision of the same tribunal, in 1891, the court delivered a centralized opinion, but public pressure forced Congress to pass an act which enabled the court to give a decentralized opinion by deciding said act to be constitutional. But it is a poor subterfuge and a bad precedent to preserve the reserved powers of Iowa and the other States by congressional legislation.

By the Virginia Act of May 12, 1887, passed at the special session, the Commonwealth's attorney in each county, city, or town where the proceeding is, as well as the attorney-general in the cases therein described, is directed, upon complaint of

the treasurer of the county, and the auditor, to sue for the recovery of taxes due by a tax-payer who has tendered interest coupons which have been detached from the bonds of the State of Virginia. The object of the enactment is to compel the holders of such coupons to prove their genuineness in court before their acceptance in payment of dues to the State, there being of coupons detached from the bonds of Virginia, according to the statement of the complainants' bill, more than four millions of dollars, in value, in the hands of the public at large, but held chiefly in London.

In case of disobedience to the commands of the statute by any of the officers, a fine is provided. On the sixth day of the ensuing June an order was made in the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Virginia, in the case of Cooper against Marye and others, restraining the parties defendant from executing the said statute of May 12th. But, in despite of the said restraining order, Attorney-General R. A. Ayres, attorney for the commonwealth in the county of Fauquier, John Scott, and the attorney for the commonwealth in Loudoun County, J. B. McCabe, proceeded to institute the prohibited suits. Each of these officers, upon a rule to show cause, was arraigned before United States Circuit Judge Bond,

and adjudged guilty of a contempt of court. Each was condemned to pay a fine and the costs, to dismiss the suits, and be confined in the city jail of Richmond until the judgment was complied with. The defendants each obtained a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court.

At the October term, 1887, Justice Stanley Matthews rendered a decision reversing the court below, the concluding part of which is as follows:

"The principal contention on the part of the petitioners is that the suit nominally against them is, in fact and law, a suit against the State of Virginia, whose officers they are, jurisdiction to entertain which is denied by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. We adjudge the suit of Cooper and others against Marye and others, in which the injunctions were granted against the present petitioners, to be in substance and law a suit against the State of Virginia. It is therefore within the prohibition of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. By the terms of that provision it is a case to which the judicial power of the United States does not extend. The Circuit Court was without jurisdiction to entertain it. All the proceedings in the exercise of the jurisdiction it assumed are null and void. The orders forbidding the petitioners to bring the suits, for the bringing of which they were adjudged to be