What has been said regarding the interpretative value of the debates in the conventions that framed and ratified the Constitution, and the value of contemporary interpretation thereof by Congress and the Executive, applies to the collection of essays published under the title of The Federalist. This is true peculiarly of these essays not only because of their respective authors - Hamilton, Madison and Jay - but because of the purpose for which they were prepared and published, namely, to persuade the several state conventions to ratify the Constitution. Having this construction of the Constitution before them, there are considerable, though not conclusive, grounds for holding that, where the meaning thus published was not repudiated, this was the construction intended by those who put the Constitution into force.28
27 Constitutional Limitations, 7th ed., p. 101.
The case of Chisholm v. Georgia29 is, however, a conspicuous instance in which a view advanced in The Federalist (that a State would not be suable in the federal courts at the instance of a citizen of another State) was repudiated by the Supreme Court.