The United States by act of Congress and various of the States of the Union by constitutional or statutory provision, have consented to be sued by individuals as to specified matters.85

In all cases, however this suability has been limited to actions in contract, express or implied. In no case have they rendered themselves pecuniarily responsible for the tortious acts of their agents. From a viewpoint of strict equity, and the general doctrine governing the responsibility of the principal for the acts of his agents, it might seem strange that claims of the individual against his State based upon contract are allowed to be adjudicated, whereas those based upon tort are not; in other words, that, the more wrongful and illegal the acts of the agents, the less liable is his principal. This state of the law, however, is a logical and necessary outcome of the general principle of American and English law that an ultra vires act of a public official is not the act of his government, but is a private act for which he may be held civilly and criminally responsible.86

84 Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 U. S. 472; 26 L. ed. 197; Rees v. Watertown, 19 Wall. 107; 22 L. ed. 72.

85 The exemption of the United States from suit may be waived only by legislative act and not by the secretary of war or the attorney general or any other officer not expressly authorized so to do. Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U. S. 255; 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 754; 40 L. ed. 960.

86 For an argument as to the justice as well as the expediency of holding the sovereign State liable for the torts of its agents, especially when it acts as the owner of, or in relation to, private property, see article by Professor Ernst Freund entitled "Private Claims against the State," in Political Science Quarterly, VII, 625. Professor Freund says: "The principal torts which may be imputable to the government in connection with its private relations, are negligence, non-compliance with statutory regulations, nuisance, trespass, and disturbance of natural easements. It is characteristic of these tort9 that they violate obligations which are cast by law upon the ownership or occupation or control of property, that they are sometimes not directly attributable to a specific act of any particular agent, and that the existence of the wrongful condition is usually of some benefit to the owner. The liability of the State in these case9 is demanded not only by justice but by the logic of the law."

For a description of the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Claims, see ante, section 564.