The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-05-05
( No. 113.

n
which leaves to the several States absolute
supremacy in all cases in which it is not
yielded to the United States. This sufici-
emily appears from the general scope and
spirit of the instrument
The United States have no power, Iegis-
ative or judicial. except what is derived
from the Constitution. When these pow
ers are clearly exceeded, the independence
OF the States, and the peace of the Union
demands that the State Courts should in
cases brought properly before them, give
redreSs There is no law which forbids it
their oath OF Office eXacts it, and if they
90 not, what course is to be taken We
must DE reduced to the miserable estre mi
ty OF opposing force to force, and arraying
Iciuzen against citizen--for it is vain to ex-
pect that the states will submit to manifest
ana fragrant usurpations of power by the
United States, if (Which God forbidl they
should ever attempt them. If Congress
should pass bill of attainder, or lay a tax
OF DUTY, on articles exported from any State.
Vrom Doth which powers they are expressly
eXciuded,) such laws would be null and void.
and all persons who acted under them would
De subject to actions in the State courts
II court OF the United States should enter
Judgment against State which refused to
appear IN an action brought against it by q.
sltlzen or another State or of foreign
o'dte, such Judgment would be Ioid, and all
persons who act under it would be trespas-
serS. These cases appear so plain, that thew
VIII hardly be disputcd--it is only in consi-
oerlng doubtful cases, that our minds feel =
olihcuity IN deciding-but, if in the Elain-
est case which can be conceived, the State
I"urtS may declare a Judgment to be void,
the principle is established But while las
! sert the power of State Courts, am deeply
sensible the necessity Of EXERCISING it. with
Ine greatest discretion--Woe TO that Judge.
VINO rashiy, or wantOniy attempts to arrest
the authority of the United States: let him
reflect again and again, before he declares
mat Ld7c on judgment have no validity.
ne Counsel for Mrs. Sergeant have with
great candor and propriety admitted, that
wheh there is reasonable cause for doubt.
that doubt should be decisive. in favor nf
the Judgment in question. The same prin-
epic has been adopted by the Judges Of the
oaPcTne court OF the United States and &c
our own state, when questions concerning
inc validity or laws, have come before theirs
and a. 1t has my hearty appreciation.
AaylhS disposed of the preliminary oues4
non, Wlli now consider the point OF iu ris-
q i Il the District court had no iuris-
@ !'I' II mus either be. on account Of the
$"occE OF the suit, or the hersons who were
HaTfFea' ! will examine thern ssuara,siy-
ne SNGjeeF is matter of prize, which a.
rose before the adoption of the present Con.
stitution. By the Cd Section of the Sd Ar
'iciS Oh the constitution. the judicial DOVER
OF the United States, extends e to all cases
o., Admiralty, and maritime Jurisdiction.''
hsse expressions comprehend ali cases
"hich HGG arisen, or which should arise
ana 1t was no doubt the intent to comDre-
hcnd them; because otherwise, ali antsce-
dent cases would have been left uny;rovideJ
1or: ibc!ieVe this construction hat uniyer-
:aily prevailed, nor has it been questioned
IN the course ofthe argument inithis case. Ir
appears then, that the subject of theibel. is di-
EeCIiy within the jurisdiction of the Court. be-
ihS a'hia1teF or adG'iraity Jurisdiction. 1t isun
NECESSARY Tor me TO give any opinion con-
cerhinS the right Of the Old Court Of ADueaIs
70 reverse the decision Of iuries. contrary Tn
me provisions of the act of Assernbly ~
FenhSylVanlai under which the State Cours
OF Admiralty was instituted. That is the
Polnt wnicI ocCasioned SO much ieaInrsy
and heart burning. between several Of he
States and the old COngress--it divided the
opinions OF many men of unquestionablg ia
Ioh's ana integrity, and certainly was Z
question OF no small difficulty. But the State
OF pennsylvania having ratified the present
constitution, did thereby virtually invest
the courts OF the United States with power
20 decide this controversy. They have de-
C!dcd 1t, and being clearly within their inris-
d!ct'on, am not at liberty to consider II nc
no" open to discussion. The Supreme
Court Of the United States, has more than
once decided, that the CD Court of Appeals
hao the power to reverse the verdicts of in
fies, Notwithstanding the law Of any State
10 the contrary. From the establishments
OF TINS principle, it irresistiLly results. that
GIdeon Oimstead and his associates. we're
entitled to the whole proceeds of the Active
and her cargo, and may pursue them into
whatever hands they have fallen. unless in
deed they have fallen into the hands Of nsr-
sons, rot subject TO an action in the courts NJ
the Unites States. This leads ma IN the
questions concerning the Turtles TO the suit-
thG only question whiChhas appeared TO me
to be OF real difficulty, and which | was
pleased to hear argued with great force and
candor ny the counsel for Mrs Sergeant.
1t IS declared by the i1th article IF the a.
mendments Of the Constitution that " the
judicial power Of the United States. shall
not be construed TO extend 70 any suit In law
or equity, commenced, or prosecuted. a.
gainst one OF the United States, by citizens
OF another State, or by citizens OF, snb;ectq
OF any Foreign State" The record in Hi,
case, 5hews a suit between citizens NJ
Connecticut and citizens of PennsvIvs-.
MA. 1t is therefore not within the words
OF the amendment But il is Contender
Ia IL