The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-05-12


tehhonse himself held them in his private
capacity and not as treasurer. fo, his iaJi-
viaual security against the bold givea to
koss. and which was still out standing when
ans decree was rendered. know not how
tbs part OF the subject Can be made plains
er. oifiH
there is another objection to the ar-u-a
ment drawn from the interest Of the state.
Which was not satisfactorily answered by Mr..
tngefsoii, to whomit was stated by the court,
during this discussion. BY the constitution
OF the U States, the judicial power extends
to all controversies between \ state and tisi-
zens OF another state, whatever might be the
nature OF the. controversy, and no matter ae
20 the court to which the cause might be as
signed by the leg slative distribution Of tbs
Judicial powers. That amendment declares
that the above provision shall not be constru-
cd to extend to any suit in iasp and eQ,tify
conmcneed or prosecuted againsta state by
citizen OF another state or an alien This
was not a suff az iasy or TN rquify but in
court or the Salw of nations and in a case
OF admiralty antsr1aritime jurisdiction. The
question Put to the learned counsel was
:" is such case excluded from the cogni-
zanCe OF the district court by this amend
ment" The answer given was, that the
amendment ought to be so construed, this
case being equally within the mischief means
tobe remeded: That is-the court is bound
to supply the words cor to cases of admiralty
& maritime jurisdiction. Would we be ius.
tilted by amy rule of law in admitting such
an interpolation, even if reason could not
be assigned for the emission of those words
in the amendment itself? l think not Ia
our various struggles to get at the spirit and
intention of the trainers of the constitution.
fear that this invaluable charter Of our
rights would in very little time be entirely
construed away, and become at length SO dis
figured that its founders would rccollect very
few OF its original features. But there APP
pears ODE solid reason for the limitation OF
the amendment to cases at law and in equity:
And this Wilt some light upon the pre-
cedlng branch of this argument. Suits at
law and IN equity cannot be prosecuted a.
gainst state without making her a party,
ana the judgment acts directly upon her
But i'll what manner was the execution to be
made etfectual? The subject WAS delicate
one, and it was thought best to avoid havinr.
it practically tested. But in cases of ADM.
rally and maritime jurisdiction, the proper
~ IN dispute is generally in the possession OF
the court or OF persons bound to produce it or
ITS equivalent, and the proceedings are i.s
rem. The Court decides i'm whom the right
is, and distributes the proceeds accordingly
LII such case the court need not depend up
OH the good will of a state claiming an inter
est IN the thing, to enable it to execute it's de-
cree. All the world are parties to such q
suit, and of course are bound by the SEN
tence. The state may interpose her claim
and have it decided.
But she cannot lie by, and after the decree
is passed, say she was party and therefore
not bound for want of Jurisdiction in the court
lhis doctrine in relation to the proceedings
OF court of the law of nations nd>n which
all nations are interested, might be produc-
tive OF the most serious consequences to the
general government, to whom is confiaed all
our relations with foreign governments. "a
at present advised, then, we think that the
amendment TO the constitution does nor ex-
tend to suits of admiralty and maritime iu-
risdiCtion.
The second ground of Justification is Z
dcd upon the orders of the governor q
state; issued as it is commended undo.
sanction of law of the state. Whether,
true meaning OF that law has been mistaken
not. 1t would perhaps ill-become this COT
to decide; but it will not, trust, be deem
indeCorous if we express a hope that it ~ As
50. 1t is more agreeable 10 think thar AN ~
divIduai should have been mistaken in his
Judgement (and IN this case we are bound to
think that the error, if any, was not of tbs
hearD than that the legislature should have
intended toopen an attack upon the constitu-
ton and government of the United States -
But it such was the design of the law, we
must lament the circumstance, and must,
without reserve, pronounce it to be unconsti-
tutonal and void. Upon what is the la.s pre-
dicated! Upon the validity of the sentence OF
the district Court. But have the people ofthe
". .. conhded to the legislatures of the states,
or even TO that of the u. States, the power to :
declare the Judgements Of the national courts
null and void could sncb power be grant,
ed to them, without sapping the foundations,
or the government, and distinguishing the
last spark of American liberty 1t j. a tru.h
not TO be questioned, that the power to de-
clare the judgements of your courts void.
can never be safely lodged with body whs
may enforce its decision by the physical force
OF the people. This power necessarily re-
sides in the judicial tribunals and can safely
reside no where else. Wlether state
court IL competent to declare judgement :
OF a federal court void for want of iu- j
risdiction, need not now be considered -
1t may, however, be observed that admit. 4
ting the right in the first instance, the uti-
mate decision of the question belongs TO the
supreme judicial tribunal of the nation, il
that decision be required, for the judicial
power extends to all cases arising nnder
the constitution and the laws of the United
States, made in pursuance thereof; and the
25th section of the judicial law, with view
to secure to the national judiciary this inn
portant privilege, vests in the supreme
court power to- review and affirm or re-
h.. II. -. -