taxes.

In the Senate, the resolution was referred to a Committee, which reported in favor of its passage, but opposition being manifested to it, it was never acted upon.

CONTROVERSY BETWEEN NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.-By certain documents which were laid before the legislature, relative to the controversy between that State and the State of New Jersey, as to territory and jurisdictional limits, it appears, that New Jersey commenced a suit in the Supreme Court of the United States, in which she sets forth that she is justly entitled to the exclusive jurisdiction and property of, and over the waters of the Hudson river, from the 41st degree of latitude, to the bay of New York, or midway of the said river, and to the midway of the channel of the said bay of New York, and the whole of Staten Island Sound, together with the land covered by water of the said river, bay, and sound, in the like extent. To bring the matter zo an issue, she filed her bill, and procured a subpoena to be served

on the governor and attorney general, to appear on behalf of the people of the state of New York, and answer thereto, under the penalty of five hundred dollars. The governor informed the legislature, that unless otherwise directed, he should instruct the attorney general to protest against any waiver of right by appearing, but to appear to contest the suit in its progress.

In the first instance, the governor, upon the advice of the attorney general, determined not to appear, nor to acknowledge the jurisdiction,of the federal court; but the public opinion of the state, was so decidedly expressed against that course that he was compelled to forego his purpose, and offer the decision of the supreme court in January Term, 1831, ordering the State of New York, to appear at the

next term, or in case

of default, the Court would proceed to hear the cause, the governor transmitted the following message to the legislature, setting forth his reasons for refusing to appear upon the first citation.

'Gentlemen,-I consider it my duty to lay before you, the accompanying communication from the attorney general, concerning our controversy with New Jersey. The matter to which it relates, derives much of its importance from the grounds assumed by the judges of the supreme court of the United States with regard to their powers; and I feel bound to present to you my views of the subject, as well as the course which I feel impelled, by a regard to the interests and honor of the state, to pursue, unless you shall think proper to give it a different direction.

'You are apprised, by the accompanying papers, and those which have preceded them, from the same

source, of the several steps taken by the State of New Jersey, to compel our appearance before the national judiciary, to contest with her the question of sovereignty over a portion of the waters of Hudson river. It seems to be a mere sovereignty over the waters, inasmuch as New Jersey admits in her bill of complaint, that, whatever right she may have had to the islands, those rights have been lost by adverse possession and the lapse of time.

'The attorney general, with my sanction, has hitherto declined to appear in court, and respond to the complaint, without intending any disrespect to that high tribunal, and in a manner, which I trust, precludes the imputation of such a motive. His refusal to appear, was grounded upon the belief, that the court has not been invested with the power to take cognizance of original suits where a state is made a defendant party. The reasons for this opinion, is more fully detailed by the attorney general, but may be succinctly stated as follows:

'1. It was not designed, by the constitution, to confer that power on the court, until congress had legislated upon it, and declared what controversies between states were proper to be entertained by the court, and what should be the mode of proceeding. The constitution is silent in regard to both of these matters. A strong argument in favor of this construction, is afforded by that clause in the constitution, which, after enumerating the powers of congress, adds, "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by the constitution in the government

of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

2. That congress had passed no laws for those purposes,

In 1789, a judiciary act was passed, giving writs and other proceedings in all cases, other than those where a state was defendant. This was a practical construction of the constitution, and showed their opinion, that legislation was necessary to enable the court to proceed. And by neglecting to provide specifically for proceeding in controversies between states, they indicated their opinion, that the time had not arrived, when it would be proper for the court to entertain such suits. The meaning of congress is most distinctly marked by the wording of the judiciary act. It grants to the court the power to issue certain writs; and further, "all other writs not specially provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law." Now, as no mode as proceeding against a sovereign state, is known to the common law, it would seem to be a fair conclusion, that congress designed, by precise and unequivocal language, to exclude an implication that the power to proceed against a state was granted by the act.

'3. Although the court has frequently attempted to exercise this power, by entering suits against states, and summoning them to appear and answer, no state had ever obeyed their summons; thereby virtually denying the power of the court.