ice；　the　utmost　care　which　could　be　taken　in　defining　their　separate　jurisdictions　would　have　been　insufficient　to　prevent　frequent　collisions　between　those　tribunals。　　The　question　then　arose　to　whom　the　right　of　deciding　the　competency　of　each　court　was　to　be　referred。
  In　nations　which　constitute　a　single　body　politic；　when　a　question　is　debated　between　two　courts　relating　to　their　mutual　jurisdiction；　a　third　tribunal　is　generally　within　reach　to　decide　the　difference；　and　this　is　effected　without　difficulty；　because　in　these　nations　the　questions　of　judicial　competency　have　no　connection　with　the　privileges　of　the　national　supremacy。　　But　it　was　impossible　to　create　an　arbiter　between　a　superior　court　of　the　Union　and　the　superior　court　of　a　separate　State　which　would　not　belong　to　one　of　these　two　classes。　　It　was；　therefore；　necessary　to　allow　one　of　these　courts　to　judge　its　own　cause；　and　to　take　or　to　retain　cognizance　of　the　point　which　was　contested。　　To　grant　this　privilege　to　the　different　courts　of　the　States　would　have　been　to　destroy　the　sovereignty　of　the　Union　de　facto　after　having　established　it　de　jure；　for　the　interpretation　of　the　Constitution　would　soon　have　restored　that　portion　of　independence　to　the　States　of　which　the　terms　of　that　act　deprived　them。　　The　object　of　the　creation　of　a　Federal　tribunal　was　to　prevent　the　courts　of　the　States　from　deciding　questions　affecting　the　national　interests　in　their　own　department；　and　so　to　form　a　uniform　body　of　jurisprudene　for　the　interpretation　of　the　laws　of　the　Union。　　This　end　would　not　have　been　accomplished　if　the　courts　of　the　several　States　had　been　competent　to　decide　upon　cases　in　their　separate　capacities　from　which　they　were　obliged　to　abstain　as　Federal　tribunals。　　The　Supreme　Court　of　the　United　States　was　therefore　invested　with　the　right　of　determining　all　questions　of　jurisdiction。　*e
  ＇Footnote　e：　In　order　to　diminish　the　number　of　these　suits；　it　was　decided　that　in　a　great　many　Federal　causes　the　courts　of　the　States　should　be　empowered　to　decide　conjointly　with　those　of　the　Union；　the　losing　party　having　then　a　right　of　appeal　to　the　Supreme　Court　of　the　United　States。　　The　Supreme　Court　of　Virginia　contested　the　right　of　the　Supreme　Court　of　the　United　States　to　judge　an　appeal　from　its　decisions；　but　unsuccessfully。　　See　〃Kent's　Commentaries；〃　vol。　i。　p。　300；　pp。　370　et　seq。；　Story's　〃Commentaries；〃　p。　646；　and　〃The　Organic　Law　of　the　United　States；〃　vol。　i。　p。　35。＇
  This　was　a　severe　blow　upon　the　independence　of　the　States；　which　was　thus　restricted　not　only　by　the　laws；　but　by　the　interpretation　of　them；　by　one　limit　which　was　known；　and　by　another　which　was　dubious；　by　a　rule　which　was　certain；　and　a　rule　which　was　arbitrary。　　It　is　true　the　Constitution　had　laid　down　the　precise　limits　of　the　Federal　supremacy；　but　whenever　this　supremacy　is　contested　by　one　of　the　States；　a　Federal　tribunal　decides　the　question。　　Nevertheless；　the　dangers　with　which　the　independence　of　the　States　was　threatened　by　this　mode　of　proceeding　are　less　serious　than　they　appeared　to　be。　　We　shall　see　hereafter　that　in　America　the　real　strength　of　the　country　is　vested　in　the　provincial　far　more　than　in　the　Federal　Government。　The　Federal　judges　are　conscious　of　the　relative　weakness　of　the　power　in　whose　name　they　act；　and　they　are　more　inclined　to　abandon　a　right　of　jurisdiction　in　cases　where　it　is　justly　their　own　than　to　assert　a　privilege　to　which　they　have　no　legal　claim。
  Different　Cases　Of　Jurisdiction
  The　matter　and　the　party　are　the　first　conditions　of　the　Federal　jurisdiction　…　Suits　in　which　ambassadors　are　engaged　…　Suits　of　the　Union　…　Of　a　separate　State　…　By　whom　tried　…　Causes　resulting　from　the　laws　of　the　Union　…　Why　judged　by　the　Federal　tribunals　…　Causes　relating　to　the　performance　of　contracts　tried　by　the　Federal　courts　…　Consequence　of　this　arrangement。
  After　having　appointed　the　means　of　fixing　the　competency　of　the　Federal　courts；　the　legislators　of　the　Union　defined　the　cases　which　should　come　within　their　jurisdiction。　　It　was　established；　on　the　one　hand；　that　certain　parties　must　always　be　brought　before　the　Federal　courts；　without　any　regard　to　the　special　nature　of　the　cause；　and；　on　the　other；　that　certain　causes　must　always　be　brought　before　the　same　courts；　without　any　regard　to　the　quality　of　the　parties　in　the　suit。　　These　distinctions　were　therefore　admitted　to　be　the　basis　of　the　Federal　jurisdiction。
  Ambassadors　are　the　representatives　of　nations　in　a　state　of　amity　with　the　Union；　and　whatever　concerns　these　personages　concerns　in　some　degree　the　whole　Union。　　When　an　ambassador　is　a　party　in　a　suit；　that　suit　affects　the　welfare　of　the　nation；　and　a　Federal　tribunal　is　naturally　called　upon　to　decide　it。
  The　Union　itself　may　be　invoked　in　legal　proceedings；　and　in　this　case　it　would　be　alike　contrary　to　the　customs　of　all　nations　and　to　common　sense　to　appeal　to　a　tribunal　representing　any　other　sovereignty　than　its　own；　the　Federal　courts；　therefore；　take　cognizance　of　these　affairs。
  When　two　parties　belonging　to　two　different　States　are　engaged　in　a　suit；　the　case　cannot　with　propriety　be　brought　before　a　court　of　either　State。　　The　surest　expedient　is　to　select　a　tribunal　like　that　of　the　Union；　which　can　excite　the　suspicions　of　neither　party；　and　which　offers　the　most　natural　as　well　as　the　most　certain　remedy。
  When　the　two　parties　are　not　private　individuals；　but　States；　an　important　political　consideration　is　added　to　the　same　motive　of　equity。　　The　quality　of　the　parties　in　this　case　gives　a　national　importance　to　all　their　disputes；　and　the　most　trifling　litigation　of　the　States　may　be　said　to　involve　the　peace　of　the　whole　Union。　*f
  ＇Footnote　f：　The　Constitution　also　says　that　the　Federal　courts　shall　decide　〃controversies　between　a　State　and　the　citizens　of　another　State。〃　And　here　a　most　important　question　of　a　constitutional　nature　arose；　which　was；　whether　the　jurisdiction　given　by　the　Constitution　in　cases　in　which　a　State　is　a　party　extended　to　suits　brought　against　a　State　as　well　as　by　it；　or　was　exclusively　confined　to　the　latter。　　The　question　was　most　elaborately　considered　in　the　case　of　Chisholm　v。　Georgia；　and　was　decided　by　the　majority　of　the　Supreme　Court　in　the　affirmative。　　The　decision　created　general　alarm　among　the　States；　and　an　amendment　was　proposed　and　ratified　by　which　the　power　was　entirely　taken　away；　so　far　as　it　regards　suits　brought　against　a　State。　　See　Story's　〃Commentaries；〃　p。　624；　or　in　the　large　edition　Section　1677。＇
  The　nature　of　the　cause　frequently　prescribes　the　rule　of　competency。　Thus　all　the　questions　which　concern　maritime　commerce　evidently　fall　under　the　cognizance　of　the　Federal　tribunals。　*g　Almost　all　these　questions　are　connected　with　the　interpretation　of　the　law　of　nations；　and　in　this　respect　they　essentially　interest　the　Union　in　relation　to　foreign　powers。　　Moreover；　as　the　sea　is　not　included　within　the　limits　of　any　peculiar　jurisdiction；　the　national　courts　can　only　hear　causes　which　originate　in　maritime　affairs。
  ＇Footnote　g：　As　for　instance；　all　cases　of　piracy。＇
  The　Constitution　comprises　under　one　head　almost　all　the　cases　which　by　their　very　nature　come　within　the　limits　of　the　Federal　courts。　　The　rule　which　it　lays　down　is　simple；　but　pregnant　with　an　entire　system　of　ideas；　and　with　a　vast　multitude　of　facts。　　It　declares　that　the　judicial　power　of　the　Supreme　Court　shall　extend　to　all　cases　in　law　and　equity　arising　under　the　laws　of　the　United　States。
  Two　examples　will　put　the　intention　of　the　legislator　in　the　clearest　light：
  The　Constitution　prohibits　the　States　from　making　laws　on　the　value　and　circulation　of　money：　If；　notwithstanding　this　prohibition；　a　State　passes　a　law　of　this　kind；　with　which　the　interested　parties　refuse　to　comply　because　it　is　contrary　to　the　Constitution；　the　case　must　come　before　a　Federal　court；　because　it　arises　under　the　laws　of　the　United　States。　　Again；　if　difficulties　arise　in　the　levying　of　import　duties　which　have　been　voted　by　Congress；　the　Federal　court　must　decide　the　case；　because　it　arises　under　the　interpretation　of　a　law　of　the　United　States。
  This　rule　is　in　perfect　accordance　with　the　fundamental　principles　of　the　Federal　Constitution。　　The　Union；　as　it　was　established　in　1789；　possesses；　it　is　true；　a　limited　supremacy；　but　it　was　intended　that　within　its　limits　it　should　form　one　and　the　same　people。　*h　Within　those　limits　the　Union　is　sovereign。　　When　this　point　is　established　and　admitted；　the　inference　is　easy；　for　if　it　be　acknowledged　that　the　United　States　constitute　one　and　the　same　people　within　the　bounds　prescribed　by　their　Constitution；　it　is　impossible　to　refuse　them　the　rights　which　belong　to　other　nations。　　But　it　has　been　allowed；　from　the　origin　of　society；　that　every　nation　has　the　right　of　deciding　by　its　own　courts　those　questions　which　concern　the　execution　of　its　own　laws。　　To　this　it　is　answered　that　the　Union　is　in　so　singular　a　position　that　in　relation　to　some　matters　it　constitutes　a　people；　and　that　in　relation　to　all　the　rest　it　is　a　nonentity。　But　the　inference　to　be　drawn　is；　that　in　the　laws　relating　to　these　matters