Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1810-01-19
Virginia Legislature.
=E
1889 OF Dele GArEs.
THuRsDAY,l Ian. II, 1910.

The Committees 70 whom was referred
the communication of the governor OF Penn
sylvan,a, covefhg Certain resolutions Of the
legislature ofthAt Estate, proposing an a.
mendment to he constitution of the United
STATES, by the appointment of an impartial
tribunal to decide disputes between the
state and federal Judiciary, have had the
same under their cons Iteration, and are of
opinion that a trihunalis already provided
by the constitution of the United States, to
wit, the supreme court, more eminensiy
quail fed from their habits & duties-from
the mode of their selection, and from the
tenure of their offices TO decide the disputes
aforesaid 10 an enlightened aud impartial
manner than any other tribuoal which could
be created.
The members Of the supreme court are
selected from those IN the Unted States
who are most celebrated for virIue and lie
| gal learning, BOT at the viii of single in
dividual, but by ths concurrent wishes of
The President and Senate of the United
States, they viii therefore have no local
prejudices And partialities The duties
they have tpPerform leads them aecessa-
lrily to the most enlarged and accurate ac-
quaiutance with the jursd ctiono the fed.
| srai and several state courts together,
and with the admirable symmetry of our
4 tSNNihhCut. BC VI IN cit OH
ces enables hem to pronounce the sound
and correct opinions they may have form.
ed, without fear, favor or Partially.
| The amending ut TO the constitution pro
posed by Pennsylvania seems to DC founded
upon the idea that the federal JUDICIARY
will, from lust OF power, enlarge their
| jurisdiction TO the total annihllati of the
| Jurisdiction OF the state courts, that they
! will exercise their will instead of the law
and the constitution.
This argument il IL proves any thing
would operate more strongly against the
tribunal proposed to be created which pro.
misses 50 liuIe, than against the supreme
/ court, which fpr the reasons gwen before,
| have every thing connected with their an.
poiniment calculated 10 ensure confidence
| What security nave we, we're the proposed
amendment adopted, that this tribunal
/ would not substitute their villa their
( pleasure in place of The law? Tn. iud, ci.
airy arethe weakest of the three depart.
iUents ofgovsrnment, and Least dangerous
to the political rights of the constitution -
! they hold neither the purse nor che sword,
and even to enforce their own judgments
and DEGREES must ultimately depeud upon
the executive arm. Should the federal
Judiciary however, unmindtul of their weak :
ness, unmindful Of the dnty which they
owe to themselves and their country, be-
come corrupt and transcend the limits OF
their jurisd ction would the proposed a :
mendment oppose even probable barrier
la such az irHproba5le state OF thingsl
The creatioDeof tribunal such as is pro.
posed by Pennsylvania, 50 far as we are
enabled 10 form ar idea Of il from the des
eription given in the resolutions of the l. !
gisi"ture OF that state, would in the op.ni
on OF your committee, tend rather to iavite
thsn prevent a collisios between the fed
eral and state Courts. II might also, be.
! come IN process OF time, serious and
dangerous embarrassment TO the operations
nf the general gcrnment-
Resolved there ore, That the legisiaturs
Of this state do dlstpprpve OF the amend !.
mentto the constitution Of t.ls Uoi,ed States