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

say, that the Constitution, when speaking |,
OF the cases Ill which the Supreme Court |
should have appellate power, was thinking |
of federal and state courts, and by these |
words, me ant to subject the latter TO the |
jurisdiction of tn. former.
5. 1t hes been Conceded, that power
must be expressly given. Now, ih the pre-
sent case, there is not single word eX-
presSly apple bic t. state tribunals
But it may be SAID, that the terms Of the
Constitution tho general are express, and
that the general terms include this case.--
In illustration of this idea, it may be fur
Their sad, Tint there IS no express de,ega-
ton to the Supreme Court of appellate iu-
risdction, over tie inferior Courts of the
United States yet it has this jurisdiction
over them.
The general terms Of the Constitution.
therefore, embracing, as is admitted, an
appellate jurisdiction over the inferior
Courts of the u States, may. on the same
principle, TIC sad &c embrace the ju'isdic-
ton in question. TINS I conceive to be the
strongest argument that can be urged, in
support OF The appellate preterso Of the
Supreme Court Of the u. States.
The considerations already suggested,
may be used with great force az INST the
argument just stated. My own impression
is, chat they are conclusive. But there is
an additional remark too important to be
passed by.
All words, oral or written, the construc-
ton CT which is judicially or even rational
lv in, estigated, must be referred to the
subj ct natter. Although it be true, that
general terms are to be generally under
stood, still their generality must be res
tricted to the subject 20 which the speech
on writing l. lates. Illustrations of this ell
ementary ana obvious principle would be
superiluous in this Court, and in ordinary
cases, perhaps impropcr-But this is no
an ordinary case and the Court will there
fore indulge me, viii | mention two fur
nished, among mauv others, by the Con
stitution itsclf--nc of them, by the section
under consideration.
The trial of al crimes, except in cases
OF impeachment, Shall be by Jury" What
crimes The expression is general there
is no exception. Yet. that the Constitution
meant all crimes committed against the
United States" it would be rs idle to at
tempt to prove, as it would be absurd to
dsny.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accu-
Sed snail enjoy the right 10 speedy and
public tritl by an impartial jury of the
state and district, &C." 1t is equally clear
that the words :" all criminal prosecutions
mean those only v hich are instituted on the
part of the u. States.
This plain reasoning ut once detects and
exposes the fallacy of the argument under
consideration. The section on which it
relies. speaks of the judicial power of the
u. States only. The clause in question,
speaks of the Courts of the l.. States only
the Supreme Court of the u States, and
such inferior tribunals, as Congress might
establish. The relation between these
Courts, as Supreme and inferior, is dis
tinctly announced. They and the distribu-
ton between them of the judicial power of
the u. States. constituted the subject mat
ter. When, therefore, appellate jurisdic-
ton is given to the Supreme Court,
that appellate jurisdiction must be con
sidered IS extended over the inferior fc-
deral Tribunals, which had been mention
ed, and not over state courts, about which
not word had been said
This construction of the constitution,
limiting the appellate power Of the SUI
preme Court, to federal tribunals, is ire
sistibly enforced, by an argument de,uced
from the power given to Congress, to make
such exceptions and regulations concern
ing 1t, IS they might deem proper. Is it
not obvious that this appellate power was
understood to be within the veach of Con-
gressionai regulation and control? And
is it not so, provided the restriction for
which ] contend he adopted1 But if the
appellate power of the Supreme Court be
extended to state tribunals, why then il
follows that Congress must have the power
OF regulating the proceedings of state as
well as federal courts; power never yet
exercised, nor even claimed, but Oh the
contrary very distinctly disavowed. Con-
gress, in relation to the appellate power
of the Supreme Courts over their inferior
Courts, have established several regulate
ons. BY the 10Th section Of the judicial
act, they have directed, that the facts
shall appear on the record. BY the 3Oth
section they have directed, that the evil
dense shall be recorded, and authorised
a recourse to it, where the witnesses can
not be procured. These regulations,
however, and indeed all prescribed by
that act, relate exclusively to the federal
courts. Not one word is said that has
any relation to the state courts. The right
OF appeal from them is asserted, but no
regulation is attempted.-None; mean,
affecting the trial or previous proceedings.
There is not only no regulation concern
ing appeals from the state courts, Of the
description just mentioned, but there is no
tempt to provide remedy, in case this
appellate power should be controverted or
opposed. Collision between the federal
til unais is fotc.een, aud tbs evil is cor
rected by mandamus or prohibition but
IN case of collision b tween the federal and
state tribunals, no remedy whatever is
provided. The knowledge on the part e