An Act "passed by the first Congress assembled under the Constitution, many of whose members had taken part in framing that instrument,... is contemporaneous and weighty evidence of its true meaning."

"The rule that the courts of no country execute the penal laws of another applies not only to prosecutions and sentences for crimes and misdemeanors, but to all suits in favor of the State for the recovery of pecuniary penalties for any violation of statutes for the protection of its revenue, or other municipal laws

—was in its "essential nature and real foundation" the same as the original cause of action, and therefore a suit could not be maintained upon such a judgment beyond the limits of the State in which it was rendered. pp. 193-198.

By the constitution, therefore, this court has original jurisdiction of suits brought by a state against citizens of another state, as well as of controversies between two states.

This cannot be correct, for it must be conceded that a state can bring an original suit in this court against a citizen of another state.

It has often been recognized by this Court that there are some limitations upon the extent to which a state may be required by the full faith and credit clause to enforce even the judgment of another state in contravention of its own statutes or policy.

The Supreme Court has long interpreted its original jurisdiction narrowly, even compared to the lower courts' Article III jurisdiction.

Of other controversies between a State and another State or its citizens, which, on the settled principles of public law, are not subjects of judicial cognizance, this court has often declined to take jurisdiction.

This court has repeatedly laid down the principle that a contemporaneous legislative exposition of the Constitution, when the founders of our government and framers of our Constitution were actively participating in public affairs, acquiesced in for a long term of years, fixes the construction to be given its provisions.