[287] The steamboat Magnolia, 20 Howard, 296 (1857).

[288] Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S., 37 (1879). Thus canals are highways of commerce and subject to “regulation” by Congress. The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U. S., 17 (1903); Ex parte Boyer, 109 U. S., 629 (1884).

[289] Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U. S., 255 (1896), where the cases are cited.

[290] Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheaton, 414 (1821).

[291] United States v. Texas, 143 U. S., 621 (1892). The doctrine also in South Dakota v. North Dakota, 192 U. S., 286 (1904).

[292] Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S., 449 (1884); the “party” may be a State (including its corporate subdivisions), or a natural person (or persons), or an artificial person (a corporation).

[293] Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U. S., 265 (1888).

[294] Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S., 1 (1890). The history of the Eleventh Amendment includes the entire record as to suits against States. The principles involved may be found as discussed by Hamilton in The Federalist, No. lxxxi; by Marshall, Madison, Mason, and Henry, in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 3 Elliott’s Debates; in Mr. Justice Iredell’s dissenting opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dallas, 419; and a special history of the Amendment in the author’s Constitutional History of the United States, ii., 264–293. The Eleventh Amendment overruled the decision in the Chisholm case. As to suits against a State by its own citizens see Railroad Co. v. Tennessee, 101 U. S., 337 (1879). The principle here is that the sovereign may assent to being sued by its own citizens,—an assent declared by the State constitution, but available by the citizen only according to acts of the Legislature. The privilege (if it exists) is statutory. But suit against an officer, or agent of the State,—or of the United States, is not barred if that officer exercises a ministerial function; such suit is not a suit against the sovereign (United States, or State). See U. S. v. Lee, 106 U. S., 196 (1882); Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick R. R. Co., 109 U. S., 446 (1883).

[295] Judiciary Act, 1789, 1888 (and so amended.)

[296] The Ohio and Mississippi R. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black, 286 (1861). Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U. S., 395 (1897).