Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1816-01-04
HUNTER rs. FlIPFAX.

NV IN %. F.1 I1N<f.1A.
Inc ConrS having ntimat 4 wish to
have the aid of tbs Bar. in the investga-
ton OF this case, have bestowed some at
tenton on the great questions which it
presents, and will now subu,it the result
OF my inquiries and reflections.
he questions which propose to dis
cuss. are these: /. Is the 25lh section of
the Judicial act, which gives to the Su-
preme Court of the United States an an
peilate jurisdiction, in certain cases dsci-
ded IN the Supreme Cont of State, au-
thorised by the Constitution of the United
Statess 2. If this section be not 50 au
thoriSed, can this Court undertake to de-
clare 1t unconstitutional; or does the RICH,
tn make this declaration in this case, AID
IN all cases affecting the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court of the United States, be-
long, exclusively to that Court?
Before | eng ge in the discussion of the
nrst question, to which my attention will
be Principally directed, l will submit a
few remarks not yet presented to the Court.
which possibly may contribute to n,atr
straight the 7oGy, leading to the ground a.
bout to be explored.
There is radical difference between p
state government and that of the United
States. The first possesses a general, the
.atter special power of legislation. A
state government possesses a right to ie-
Slsiate on all subjects. those only except
cd, on which it is forbidden to act. The
government of the United States on the
other hand, possesses no power to legis-
late, except on those subjects on which it
is expressly empowered to act.
Inc inference from the proposition lust
stated, IS, that when the validity of a state
law is denied, he who makes this denial.
must prove thatit is forbidden by the con-
st'eution OF the state, or that of the United
States. But when a law of the Un.t.d
otates is brought into question, it must be
proved TO be made in conformity to the fe-
derai constitution.
his inference applies directly to the
case before the Court. A claim Of appeI-
late jurisdiction over this Court. is mad in
behalf OF the Supreme Court of the United
States, and the 25th section before men,i-
oned, is exhibited as the foundation of the
CLAIM. require proof that the onst;tuti-
on OF the United States gave to Congress
power TO pass this law. The onus pro-
oahdi iss on my opponents; it is not
enough Tor them TO create q doubt upon
tue SUBJECT; as long as there is doubt.
the CLAIM cannot be allowed they must
prone that the law is warranted by the
constitution of the United States. But I
am Content to relinquish this point. and
am Wiling to concede, what in strictness
cannot be required, that every law passed
by the Congress of the United States and
approved by the President, ought, not only
lii the Courts of the United States, but in
this Court andi all Courts, to be hresuDled
70 be warranted by the constitution Of the
Ohlted states. Under this concession, it
Is Incumbent on me to prove that the law
Ia question rs not so warranted. Ths
task undertake to perform, not by subtle
and technical disouisltion. not bv means &c
that sort OF special pleading, which after
beng almost driven from the law. HIS late
~ found refuge in polit cs but bv fair.
rational, candid, and may add, a liberal
Interpretation of the constitution.
he Court, trust, will not deem II i'm
proper IN me to remark, that in advocating
TINS dectrine, am not delivering with a
view TO sult my own argument, an opinion
recently formed, the result of reflections
since the commencement OF this discussion !:
but an opinion, adopted and maintained
several years past, after mature delibera.
ton. am now travelling through conn
try, which ! have frequently explored.--
Some OF the Judges of this Court, perhaps
all. will distinctly understood me.
viii submit another preliminary re-
marx. The g,eat and fatal defect Of the
old confederation, was, that the exercise.
OF It's most important powers, depended on
me cooperation Of the state governments
Instead OF raising men for the defence OF
The nation and money to supply the pub
lie wants by its own authority, acting d.
rectiy and Immediately on the people. It
was compelled to rely On acquisitions adj
dressed to the legislatures Of the states.
Inc object of the new Confederation
was to remedy this defect, by making the
powers OF the general government, entire
~ Independent Of the st4te governments.
and by applying them, without the concur
renee OF any intermediate authority, di-
recty to the people. il is believed, that
this policy has been uniformly maintained
throughout the Constitution. Not single
instance is recollccted in which the efTs Ct
OF power, granted to the general gov
eminent, is left to depend on the consent
or cooperation cf the states. But the
construction Of the constitution now con
tended for by the AppelIee's counsel, in
giving TO the Supreme Court Of tie United
states an appellate jurisdiction over the
Supreme Court Of state, produces an
anomaly in our system, which it is difficult
to believe could have been intended. If
the state court will not suffer its record to
be sent up, or refuse 20 register tic edict
OF revesal, coll SIGN, against which the
government is in al other cases efFrctually
secured, is uuqucssionably produced.