You will find one, and it is a leading case, in the 7th of Wallace, 700,- The State of Texas v. White, where the State of Texas brought suit against certain parties in the Supreme Court for the purpose of enjoining the negotiation of State bonds, a large amount of which had passed out of the control of the State officers during the confusion and trouble in that State; and the State obtained an injunction, and finally, under a decree of the Supreme Court, obtained the bonds themselves, to a large amount. I refer to it as an instance in which a State, under the Constitution, exerted its authority to bring a suit in that court against individuals.

I have gone through all I desire to say upon the subject of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and I will now ask your attention for a few moments to the practice of that court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, because you will find that the practice of the Supreme Court under its appellate jurisdiction is something entirely different from its practice under its original jurisdiction. There is no act of Congress regulating the practice of the Supreme Court, under its original jurisdiction; but the third rule of the Supreme Court respecting its own practice is in these words:

"This court consider the practice of the Courts of King's Bench and Chancery in England as affording outlines for the practice of this court, and they will from time to time make such altera

tions therein as circumstances may render necessary."

That is a very old rule, made by the court immediately after its organization, and rules have been from time to time made by the court, under what it considers to be its power in the absence of an act of Congress, in regard to a variety of subjects occurring in the course of its original jurisdiction. I shall have occasion to refer to some of them.

The most important class of cases under this original jurisdiction—indeed, the only class which has been of any practical importance thus far in the history of the court - has been suits between States, or between a State and citizens of another State. I do not know that I can refer to any rule of the court, or to any decision which has fixed any rule by which the proceedings in such cases are absolutely regulated, but the general understanding is, and the general practice so far as I know, the universal practice, except in one or two very early cases has been to resort to a bill in equity, and it is under the forms of proceeding in equity that this original jurisdiction for a great many years has been exercised. So that, when a State has had occasion to bring a suit, it has filed a bill in which it states its case in the same form, and under the same rules of pleading, as if it were suing in a court of equity, and there is a demurrer,

or a plea, or an answer, or whatever is deemed to be a proper defence, regulated by rules of practice similar to those which would regulate the same suit if it were in the Circuit Court or a State court in equity, where equity practice was known. You may therefore safely take it, that in all cases between States, or between a State and an individual, where this original jurisdiction is to be exercised, unless it is a case in which the common law would afford a plain, adequate, and complete remedy, you are to file a bill in equity, as if you were prosecuting a claim in an equity court.

It is not to be forgotten that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court extends to cases both in law and equity; and that the division between the two systems is just as sharp and clear when this original jurisdiction is appealed to as when application is made to an inferior court, and that in cases remediable by the common law, plainly and adequately, the remedy sought must be by the forms of the common law in the Supreme Court as well as in the inferior courts.

I perhaps might mention here, in passing, though it is not a point of very much importance, that a suit against the Governor of a State, in his official capacity, is deemed by the court to be a suit against the State.1 I should also mention, as a point of more

1 [Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 Howard, 66; Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, 1 Peters, 110.]

importance, that the practice of the court requires that leave should be obtained before a bill is filed. Ordinarily, in a court of equity, you file your bill as a matter of right; but the practice in the Supreme Court of the United States has always been to apply to the court on motion to obtain leave to file the bill. Whether that is by reason of the dignity of the parties, the importance of the subject-matter, or what not, I do not know, but the practice early obtained, and has always been adhered to. You will find it stated in the case of The State of Georgia v. Grant, 6 Wallace, 241, where the Chief Justice says that it is necessary to obtain that leave.

The question early arose how notice was to be given of a suit against a State, and on whom process was to be served. That was disposed of by a rule which the court adopted, and which is Rule 5. "All processes in this court shall be in the name of the President of the United States," &c. When a process at common law or in equity shall issue against a State, the same shall be served on the Governor or chief executive magistrate and Attorney-General of such State.

That is the mode in which service of the process must be made.1

1 [New Jersey v. New York, 5 Peters, 284. If a State fails to appear in obedience to the summons of the court, no compulsory process will be resorted to, but the suit will proceed ex parte. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Peters, 657.]

Now, as a practical matter, I state to you, that all suits under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court are entered by the clerk on a separate docket, which is called "the original docket," and these cases are kept distinct from the cases which come there by appeal or writ of error. This original docket is a thing by itself, and all proceedings in these cases on the original docket are on motion. No case is heard, unless the court makes a special order to have it heard. No proceeding takes place in any of these original cases without a special order. If, for instance, a suit is brought by Virginia against West Virginia, as there was such a controversy not long since, the State of Virginia has to obtain leave to file a bill, to obtain process and have it served, and so get the State of West Virginia before the court.1 The next thing is, to obtain from the court an order that West Virginia answer. That is done on motion, by a special order, and the time is fixed. Every step that is taken in the case is on some special motion. That, I suppose, is on account of the dignity of the parties, the nature of the agencies they must em

1 [The case of Virginia v. West Virginia, reported in 11 Wallace, 39, was a case of boundary. It was held that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was not defeated because, in deciding the question of boundary, it was necessary to consider and construe contracts and agreements between the two States, nor because the judgment or decree of the court might affect the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the States.]