Among the numerous jurisdictional grants to the new federal court system, one of the least controversial was the proposition that the new federal courts should have jurisdiction over any case to which the new United States was a party. The provision for jurisdiction over cases to which the United States is a party was a comparatively late addition to the Constitution, adopted long after the Committee of Detail had completed its work. It seemed to reflect nothing more than a correction of an oversight. As Alexander Hamilton said of this jurisdictional grant: "any other plan would be contrary to reason." The Federalist No. 80. Even the Constitution's most vigorous opponents in the Anti-Federalist camp acknowledged the logic of this position. Later, Chief Justice John Jay noted in Calder v. Bull (1798) that federal jurisdiction over cases involving the United States was necessary "because in cases in which the whole people are interested, it would not be equal, or wise, to let any one state decide, and measure out the justice due others."