based on a prior lien granted by a State statute, which
it sought to collect out of the deposited funds; the
United States and the State were thus brought into
conflict, the United States claiming that by an Act of
Congress it had a prior lien on funds of an insolvent.^
The Court now, by Chief Justice Marshall, decided
that the writ of error must be dismissed, inasmuch as
(through careless pleading) the fact of insolvenqy
had not appeared on the record, and the record did
not show that any Act of Congress was applicable to
the situation. The extreme desire, both of the Court
and of President Madison's Administration, to avoid
conflicts between the Federal Judiciary and the State
authorities was interestingly shown by this decision,
as well as by the attitude of Attorney-General Wirt
in this case and also in a case in Maryland, in which
the Federal and the State Courts had dashed. As to
the former case, Wirt's position was described by
John Quincy Adams as follows : '
Mr. Wirt has two faults which may have an influence in the affairs of this Nation — an excessive leaning to State supremacy, and to popular humors. He asked me to n^o- tiate an arrangement this day with the State of Pennsylvania, about a delinquent debtor, both to the United States and the State of Pennsylvania. The United States marshal took his property in execution and the Pennsylvania sheriff took it from the marshal. The question was now, he said, before the Supreme Court, and he was afraid the decision would be in favor of the United States. Pennsylvania was indignant at being sunmioned before the Court, and refused to appear. I asked him what the Department of State had to do with the affair. He did not know. As a delinquent debtor, I said, his case belonged to the Treasury Department. He replied that the Treasury could not relinquish the debt. *'Nor," said I, **can the Department of State." He said if the decision should be in favor of the
^Sii]»ra» 871-874. < J. Q. Adam$. TV, April «8, 1818.
