Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-02-27

2dly. Thatit IS given BY statute ana !
right to IT has been Recognized bv NV NC
dent. rNss'
Onthe arstof these questions, /,
necessary I o ponder long this conr, m'
uniformly maintained tina, It possss "''
osner Jurisdictions or power than vhs, "a
given 1t by the constitution aud law
the u. S. or is necessarily incidep,,o "
exercise Of those expressly given.
Our decision must then rest whol,u
the due construction Of the con,,;,s,
aud laws Of the union, ana the egss, ss
precedent, q subject which certainly ,,a
ssnts much scope for close legal sooaI,r
but very little tor the play Of 4 chaslsnca
im~aginsdon.
The FIRST section of the third ar,isI. IS
he constitution vests the judicial Dover
of>the q. S. in one supreme court. ana
% such infsrisT courts as the eoastsss a,,,
remsiRe to time establish. The ssco0,
section declares the ex,en, Of sha. poas,
AID distinguishes its jsrlsdielioa into ori.
gina! and appellate.
! Nne original jurisdiction Of this .o,r,
IS restricted 10 cases affecting Ambassador,
or eher public ministers, and %eousuls, and
shoseis which a state shall be a party. 10
all otfsr cases within the judicial powers
ofstheanion, it can exercise only apeel,
late Jurisdictions The former it possssse,
independ n.ly Of the Will of auy other con.
sn.uent ornch of the general government.
W'thaut = Notation Of the constitution.
tias division t I jurisdiction can nsi.
Their be resirlsta or ex,endad. In the LAT.
ter It's powers ar,subjseied to the viii Of
the legislature ot,hs onion, and i, can
exercise appellate a,sdlcsion 10 no cas-:
unless expressly ausheised to do 60 by the
laws of congress. II understand tks
case of Marbury and Madison, j, main.
.slns this Goc,riae 10 i: full extent. (.
cannot see how it could ser have been
c%ontroyer,ed.
It is incumbent, then, I prestre. On The
council in order to maia,sis ,her nctiau,
TO prove that the issuing OF THE wtlis az
aef within the power of this court 10 is
original Jurisdiction, OF that in its sppslla.
capacity, the power is szprssaly given By
tbs lawsot congress.
This it is ate mp,ed to dc, by the fAa
and SD sections of the judiciary act, and
the cases Of Hamilton and Burfofd, shica
occurred in this court, the farmer 10 1875,
the latter ia 1905.
How far their position is supported by
ths. &C, and these cases, wa!now DC shs
suhjecs of my enquiry.
With a very unnecessary display OF g.
nergy aud pathos, shis our has been ia
peratively called upon to extend to the prl'
soners the benefit of precedent. i antaT,
very Ear, from denying the geus'al au!no'
rity OF adinaicasions. Uaitormlty IN dss'
sion is often as important as their ao''ae'
justice. BUT I deny that a sosrs IS PIE
Guided from the RICH. or exempted ffoa
the necessity of examining into the CORES
ness or consistency Of its own aet'sl0'i
or, those OF .ay sther tribunal. Ii Laced
precedent TO support me in this do''f'ns'
| vii! Gle the exanpis Of this court wa''a
ia the cas-. Of the u. S. vs.. Meort' rev.
1906, acknowledged that ia the sa's o. Nv
u. S. VS. Sims. Feb. 1905, ithad szsrs'.
ed a jurisdiction itdid nctposssss' o"ADs'
4, indeed would bs the dcctviue,' that al ~
adyerteaey oncs commiitcdby s court '.'
ever impose euit the asSesslsy o. pst'|.
i ing 10 its errer. 4 case that eaan9.
I tested by principle is not .LA@' Sau
4 thousand instances have such casa
\ declared SO By courts Of Justice .Ad
The claim of the prisoners az 'ola' r
4 on precedent stands apas. aha Ca" ~,
Hamilton was strlkias'y %sita'lar 10 0 p.d
.cnt. The prisoner mac Seen e'A' aa.'s,
\ by order of the district jadg' on d sar s,,
4 Of high treason. 4 wrisof hassa' d.
was issued by the ssprene coaf' rsa 81.
4 prisoner hailrd by their order. NJ ~ ,a
Of Burford wa, also strictly paral's.
:. present but the writ 10 the ta,ss' .s,smHI