of other states because they might be extensive creditors of the states, whereas other states, or foreign states might not be so. This imputation is equally unsupported and ungenerous. A good reason existed for the inhibition of the former class of cases which did not exist as to the latter. A jurisdiction as to the latter was permitted not only because it was in itself just and fair, but would avoid broils and wars with other powers. A foreign state may justly complain of the judgments of a rival state rendered against her, but the interests of her subjects will be concluded thereby and no cause of war afforded, unless at least the injustice be glaring. No nation especially can justly complain that the states do not give a preference to foreigners over their own citizens in their courts, as none of them give a similar preference to our citizens suing in their respective kingdoms.
The court goes on to say that they are led by the causes to which they have been pleased to ascribe the amendment in question (and which I have endeavored to show are not justly to be imputed to the states) to consider that amendment as only intended for those cases in which “some demand is made” against a state by an individual. Whatever may have been intended the words themselves of the amendment cannot be so restricted. They are comprehensive words as could be used to interdict all suits whatsoever commenced or prosecuted in a federal court. There is no reason resulting from the sovereignty or dignity of the states which does not apply as well to cases in which the state is exhibited as plaintiff, as defendant; and every reason which allows the state courts to have a just cognizance of the cause permits that cognizance to be final. The state is a defendant to a writ of error, sued out against her, and
