found in the constitutional provisions we are considering." So, also, in the case of Kansas v. Colorado (185 U. S., 125), decided in 1902, the Supreme Court held that a controversy between States of which it had original jurisdiction was presented by a bill averring that the defendant State had, and was about to exercise, the power wholly to deprive the plaintiff State of the benefit of the water of the Arkansas River which rises in the State of Colorado and flows into and through the State of Kansas. In the case of Louisiana v. Texas (176 U. S., 1), however, the court held that a bill alleging that the public officers of the latter State were so executing quarantine laws, valid in themselves, as to discriminate between the citizens of Texas and those of Louisiana, did not state a proper ground of a suit between States. In its opinion the Court said: "In order that a controversy between States, justiciable in this court, can be held to exist, something more must be put forward than that the citizens of one State are injured by the maladministration of the laws of another. . . . A controversy between States does not arise unless the action complained of is state action, and acts of state officers in abuse or excess of their powers cannot be laid hold of as in themselves committing one State to a distinct collision with a sister State." Regarding this subject of suits between States, it may finally be added that it has been held that neither Indian tribes nor territories are "States' in the sense of the clause of the Constitution granting original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet., 1; and Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cr., 445). No instance of a suit between a foreign power and one of the States of the American Union has arisen, and it is very doubtful whether the Supreme Court would entertain one. A foreign power could not, of course, be made to appear as a defendant in such a suit, and reason would therefore suggest that it should not be permitted to appear as a plaintiff. The question whether the Supreme Court will entertain a suit requiring a money judgment brought by one State against another, has just been decided in the affirmative. Such a suit was brought a number of years ago by New Hampshire against Louisiana (108) U. S.,76), but was dismissed upon the ground that the plaintiff State was not really a party of interest, but had instituted the suit in behalf of some of its own citizens. In the case of South Dakota v. North Carolina (24 Supreme Court Reporter, 269), however, decided February 1, 1904, it appearing that South Dakota was suing in its own behalf, the Supreme Court asserted its original jurisdiction and rendered judgment against the defendant State, North Carolina. A dissenting opinion, concurred in by four justices, was filed. No suit has yet been brought by a State against the United States. In Chisholm v. Georgia, Chief Justice Jay indicated, obiter, that such a suit probably could not be brought; but in Mississippi v. Johnson, a contrary view was intimated.2 A number of suits against individual States insti 1 For reasons stated in Chapter IX. For a fuller discussion of this point, see "Columbia Law Review," Vol. II, 283, 364. 2 See two excellent articles entitled "Notes on Suits between States," in the "Columbia Law Review," Vol. II, 283, 364. tuted by the United States have been entertained by the Supreme Court. Thus in United States v. North Carolina (136 U. S., 211) an action of debt upon certain bonds issued by the defendant was tried and determined upon its merits; and in United States v. Texas (143 U. S., 621) a question of boundary was determined. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE THIS note is by no means intended to be exhaustive. Its aim is simply to suggest the more important sources of information regarding the constitutional law of the United States. I. Bibliographies. CHANNING and HART, Guide to the Study of American History. 1896. A. B. HART, Handbook of the History, Diplomacy, and A. P. C. GRIFFIN, Select List of Books on the Consti- 1. United States Supreme Court Reports. The one great source of information regarding the constitutional law of the United States is the reported decisions of the federal Supreme Court. The volumes in which these are contained now (1904) number one hundred and ninety. About four new yolumes are added each year. In the more important cases, abstracts of counsel as well as the opinions of the justices are given. Until 1875 these volumes received the name of the official reporting them. Since then they have been designated simply as United States Reports. Current decisions, in unbound form, are published and sold to subscribers. The following is a list of the reports, giving their titles, abbreviations commonly used in citing them, the number of volumes, and periods covered. 91-190 U. S. 100 1875-1904 United States Reports J. B. THAYER'S "Cases in Constitutional Law" (1895), in two very large volumes, is an admirable selection of condensed cases, illuminated with notes, prepared for use by students following the "Case Book" system of instruction. Smaller collections are: C. E. BOYD'S "Cases in American Constitutional Law" (1898); E. MCCLAIN'S "A Selection of Cases on Constitutional Law" (1900). 2. Reports of the Inferior Federal Courts. Almost all important constitutional questions are carried to the Supreme Court, so that these reports are very much less important than those of the highest court. 3. Reports of the Highest Courts of the States. Many important constitutional questions in state con |