A State can not by Constitution or statute prohibit the judges of the Federal courts from charging juries with regard to matters of fact. St. Louis, etc., R'y Co. v. Vickers, 122 U. S., 360; Vicksburg, etc., R'y Co. v. Putnam, 118 U. S., 545; Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U. S., 426; Ind., etc., R'y Co. v. Horst, 93 U. S., 291.

So far as the sovereignty of the United States extends its sovereignty is supreme. No State can obstruct its officers, and it can protect them; and such protection is not dependent on State courts (Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S., 257); and original causes against Federal officers, for acts done under color of office, can be removed to the Federal courts. R. S., Sec. 643, held valid. Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S., 257.

Congress may give the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction of cases where it has original jurisdiction. Gittings v. Crawford, Taney, 9; Börs v. Preston, 111 U. S., 260.

The Supreme Court may protect itself and its members from disturbance in the exercise of its functions. Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 94. The President, under his general obligation to see that the laws are faithfully executed, is in duty bound to protect the judges from personal violence while executing their duties. In re Neagle, 135 U. S., 1.

Can act only where there is an actual controversy.The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to declare void a Federal State statute, except when a case is brought be

fore it, between litigants to an actual controversy. It never anticipates a question nor lays down a rule broader than the case before it requires. Liverpool, etc., Co. v. Com'rs of Emigration, 113 U. S., 33.

The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is conferred by Art. III, section 2, clause 1, which declares the cases in which the court shall have original jurisdiction. Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, 5 Pet., 1. This second clause distributes the jurisdiction conferred upon the Supreme Court in the previous one into original and appellate jurisdiction, but does not profess to confer any. Penn. v. Quicksilver Co., 10 Wall., 553.

"In all the cases affecting ambassadors or other public ministers."-The court on application of a person claiming to be a public minister for a writ of prohibition or mandamus, to restrain a district court from the exercise of its ordinary jurisdiction, will require the certificate of the State that he is such minister, and accept the same as conclusive evidence as to his character. A consul general of a country, in the absence of the regular minister, is not privileged as a public minister, as respects the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In re Baiz, 135 U. S., 403. The immunity of foreign ministers, as representatives of their sovereigns, is discussed by Chief Justice Marshall, in Schr. Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch, 116, 138.

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases where State is a party.-Under the Constitution, as originally adopted, a State could be sued by an individual citizen of another State. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall., 419. Service of process on the Governor and Attorney General of the State was sufficient service of the process, and the court ordered that judgment by default should be entered unless the State appeared or showed cause by the next term. Id.; Grayson v. Virginia, 3 Dall., 320. In equity like service of subpoena might be made, to be served sixty days before the return day and if the State did not appear the plaintiff might proceed ex parte. Grayson v. Virginia, 3 Dall., 320.

"It is a part of our history, that, at the adoption of the Constitution all the States were greatly indebted; and the apprehension that these debts might be prosecuted in the Federal courts formed a very strong objection to that instrument. Suits were instituted and the court maintained its jurisdiction. The alarm was general; and to quiet the apprehensions that were so extensively entertained, this amendment was proposed in Congress.

* The amendment extended to suits commenced or prosecuted by individuals but not to those brought by States." Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat., 406. This amendment applies only to original suits against the States, and does not touch the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to re-examine on appeal or writ of error a judgment rendered by a State court. Id., 264.

In cases "in which a State shall be a party."-To give the Supreme Court jurisdiction on the ground that a State is a party, the State must be the real party to the record. U. S. Bank v. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat., 906; Lincoln Co. v. Luning, 133 U. S., 529. It is not enough that the State be consequentially affected (Fowler v. Lindsey, 3 Dall., 411; Wheeling Bridge Cases, 13 How., 559), nor where a State sues a State for the benefit of a citizen. New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U. S., 76; New York v. Louisiana, id., 91; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S., 1, 16. (See post, p. 321.) Nor does it derive jurisdiction when another political community, such as an Indian tribe (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet., 15), or the District of Columbia (Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445), brings the action or is sued.

No act of Congress is necessary to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction of a suit between States. Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How., 66; New Jersey v. New York, 5 Pet., 284; Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 Dall., 1.

A suit by or against a Governor of a State, in his official character, is a suit by or against a State. Kentucky v. Dennison, Governor, 24 How., 66.

Where the chief magistrate is sued, not by his name but in his official character, and the claim is made upon him solely as such officer and not personally the State is deemed the party of record. Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, 1 Pet., 110.

Making a State officer a party does not make the State a party, although the officer may act pursuant to a State law. Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall., 203.

A suit against individuals, as officers of a State, to prevent them from enforcing an unconstitutional statute is not a suit against the State. Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S., 466.

A suit against State officers to recover real property is not a suit against the State so as to deprive a Federal court of jurisdiction. Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S., 204.

When a State holds a large amount of bonds, which are a lien upon a railroad, and the trustees of the bonds are the State agents, but hold the legal title in trust for the State, the State may seek relief in equity in the Supreme Court against citizens of another State. Florida

v. Anderson, 91 U. S., 667.

Where the State is a stockholder in a private corporation, the fact will not give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction of suit where the corporation is a party, nor disturb the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. Bank of United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheat., 904; Bk. of Ky. v. Wister, 2 Pet., 318; Briscoe v. Bk. of Ky., 11 Pet., 324; Darrington v. Bk. of Ala., 13 How., 12; Curran v. Ark., 15 How., 304; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall., 203.

A suit against a State, by its own citizen, can not be brought in a Federal Court without the consent of the