Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1809-05-15
Norsls Of the law will. fairly .WtsIralx suel

words Of the lawswill fairly warrant such q
construction.
Let me then put. this question seriously
to the jury Will they have the vanity 10
think themselves wiser than all those who
have passed opinions upon this important
question Of Aaav.2 and will they undertake
to decide that those opinions were errone-
Gus !? Miserable indeed must be the condi-
ton Of that community where the law is
unsettled, and decisions upon the very point
are disregarded when they again come a.
rectly or incidentally, into discussion. An
such state of things good men have no.
thing to hope, and bad men nothingto fear.
There is no standard by which the rights OF
property, and the most estinable privileges
TO which the citizen is entitled can be regu-
lated. Eli is doubt and uncertainty until the
Judge has pronounced the law Of the parti-
cular case before him; but which carries
with it no authority as to a similar case be-
tween other parties.
Butsuppose for a moment against the set
tied law upon the point, that the court of ap-
peals had not a power to re-examine the
verdict ofthe case of the Active; and on
that account that the decree of the district
court, in opposition to that Of the court Of
admiralty was erroneous, it does not there
fore follow that the district court had no
jurisdiction of the case On which this pro-
cess issued. Iferroneous, it could only be
re-examined and corrected in superior
court. But if the subject depended upon
question Of prize or no prize, 1t was COM
pletely within the cognizalce OF the dis
trict court by the constitution and the laws
of the United States the former OF which
grants to the federal courts, and the latter
to the district coursts cQgnizaa,ce q All ciUil
causes Of admiralty and maritime JtsiSaic-
hog. IHis is such a case !; and we consl
derthat circumstance to be decisive Of the
first point. We are happy on this occasion,
as we are on all others to CO nclde IN opinion
with the.learned and respectable gentleman
uho presides In the supreme judiciary Of
this state
The next ground Of objection to the u-
risdiction of the district court is, that the
! state Of PENNSYLVANIA claimed interest in the
subiect.in dispute between the parties to
+ that cause.
The amendment to the constitution upon
which this question occurs declares thai
!" the judicial power OF the United States
shall not be construed to extend to any suit
| in lac ar equity commenced or prosecuted
against o7lr Of the United States, by citizens
Of another state, or BY citizens or subjects
of any fore gn state" 1t IS cer,ain thatthe
! suit in the district court was not CONNIE enc
ed or prosecuted against the state of Penn
svlvania. She was IN no respect party to
| that suit. But it is contended that under
| fair construction OF this amendment, if a
state.cIaims an interes n the subiecS in dis
pute, the,case is rot coglie,able IN federal
court. In most cases it Will be foapd rhat
the soundest and safest rule'by which to ar
rive at the meaning and Intention Of law,
| is to abide by thewords Hhichths law max,
er has used. IF he has expressed himself
| 50 ambiguously that the plain Interpretation
ol,the words would lead to absugdity and to
a Contradiction of the obvious intention of
! the law, more liberal course NAV be pun
sued. BIT if upon any occasion the strict
| rule should be observed, IL ought to be lii
| expoundinS the constitution. although do
not mean to say that even in that case this
| rule should be inAexible. Every reason Is
x" It IS unnecessary FIR ne 70 s. vr any
J. .J4 Nl-y Inn, .-f