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.