Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1815-11-18

The ground of the first objection is, that
the S4th section of the judicial act of Con-
gress, passed OH the cath September, 1889,
which declares, that the laws of the seve.
raj states, except where the constitution,
treaties OF statutes of the u. States, shall
otherwise require or provide, shall be re-
garded as rules OF decision in trials at COM
mon law, in the courts of the ". States,
IN cases where they apply, extends, only to
such laws OF the several states, as were in
force at the time when this law was pass
ed. Admitting this position to be correct,
1t would nc. follow, that this law would not
ON that account have binding force, or
furnish rule of decision in this case. The
laws even of foreign countries where a
contract is made, are, by the comfy of ma
tIons, regarded every where as rule of
decision, in relation to that contract. and
1t would be strange if the laws of one state
In Which contract was made, should be
disregarded in any other state of the Union
as rule OF decision. La like manner the
laws OF country, which operate to dis
charge contract made in the same coun-
try, are regarded and enforced by foreign
courts. This doctrine was very fully exa-
mined in this court. in the case of Cam
iranque VS.. Brunette, upon question of
ball.-lndependent therefore, of the act Of
congress, if a contract made in this state,
or with view to its laws, be discharged
under law of this state, against which.
no constitutional objection can be made,
such laws, would be regarded as rules of
decision by this court, as well, that which
discharged the obligation, as that under
which 1t was created. 1t was denied by
the counsel for the plaintiff. that the con-
tract In this case, had view to its execu-
ton, according to the laws of Pennsylya-
ma but nothing can be more clear, than
that the bill in question amounted to pro-
mise made by the defendant. to paw the
sum mentioned in it, in the city of Phila-
.delphia, ninety days after sight. Paw
ment could have been demanded no wheya
but III Philadelphia, in order to enable the
pialntitfto recover. The bill in this case.
is precisely like that in the case of Robin
son and Bland, Cd Barr. and is conse-
quently within The principles LAID down in
that case.
These principles would be sufficient for
the decision of this part of the case, with
out restoring to the act of Congress.
which has been mentioned but as other
cases may occur where the general rule
admitted by the comfy of nations, may not
entirely apply, and as there appears to
me, to be no difficulty in giving CON
structIon to the S4th section of this act :
it may not be improper, to take this oppor-
tunity of doingit. 1t is to be remarked in
the hrst place, that the words of this sec
ton are general, So as to include as well
the laws of the respective states, which
might thereafter be passed, as those which
were then in existence--Tne reason for
constituting this section prOspectively, as
well as IN reference to the time when fins
law was enacted is equally strong. The
powers bestowed by the constitution. upon
the government of the United States. we're
limited III their extent, and were not in
tended, nor can they be construed to inter
fere with other pOwersbefOre vested In tbe
state governments, which were of course
reserved To these governments impliedly.
as well as by an express provision Of the
constitution. The state governments.
therefore, retained the right to make such
laws as they might think proper, within the
ordinary functions of legislation, if not in
SV'oAotCut VIII thS poNeE3 vested ekClu-
siyeiy in the government of the United
States, and not forbidden by some article
oil the constitution Of the United States. or
OF the state: aud such laws were obIirafo-
ry upon all the citizens of that state. as
well as others; who might claim rights or
redress tor injuries, under those laws, or
IN the courts of that state. The establish
ment OF federal courts, and the iurisdcti-
on granted to them in certain specified ca
ses, could not consistently with the spirit
and provisions Of the constitution, impair
any of the obligations thus imposed by the
laws Of the state, by setting up in those
courts, a rule Of decision at variance, with
that which was binding upon the citizens,
and which they were bound to obey
thus the laws of a state affecting con-
tracts, regulating the disposition and
transmission Of properf v, real or personal,
and variety Of others, which in them
selves are free from all constitutional OBJ
jecllons, are equally va lid and obligatory
within the state since the adoption of the
constitution Of the United States, as they
wee before They pc ovide rules of civil
conduct for every individual, who is sub
jet 20 their power, in TIL their relations to
society, and, cOnsequ entity, cannot in ca
scs where they apply, cease to be rules, by
winch tie conduct Of those individuals IS
to be decided, when Brought under judicial
examination, whether tic decision IS to be
made III a federal or fsfate cnurf