Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1816-02-01


trary Notwithstanding. This article mere
ly declares the supremacy Of the consttu-
,ion, laws and treaties of the United
States. over those OF the several states,
out evinces no distrust of the state Judges.
The only circumstance from which the
contrary could, possibly. be Inferred, is,
the oath imposed on them, by the said arr
tIcle: but that inference is completely de-
molishsd, by the considerations, that the
oath is ageneral one, to support the Con-
st'tueion OF the United States, and is reQuir-
Ell II be taken by the federal, rs well rs
the state Judges But if such distrust was
any how GeduCible from this clause of the
constitution, the aDti6ote is, also, provided
therein: it exists in tine oath imposed on
them. as aforesaid, to support the consti-
'urion Of the United States. This is, in
that view, il l may so express myself, the
agreed remedy for the evil, and. after this.
it does not lie in the mouth of any, to raise
the objection. 1t is not for Congress to
distrust those in whom the constitution has
contided; to distrust them, in the exercise
OF an antient and ordinary jurisdiction, and
which has not been taken away, or i'm
paired by any specific grant in the consti-
tnton.--While Ii is not intended to enter
into any comparison, of the fitness of the
respective judiciaries for that service, it
may be asked. however, is it insinuated or
expected, that the fcds ral judges will yield
to fioihicai consequences, and adapt
themselves, in matters OF treaty, to
the policy of the administration l hope
not and vet it is difficult 10 assign any o.
Their ground, on which their monopoly of
jurisdiction, on this subject, has been so
zealously Coutended for.
IT the power now in question belongs to
the state tribunals. when attaching there
in, in exclusion of the Courts of the United
States, that fact is well known to foreign
nations, and must b. submitted to by them.
1t 1t could even be deemed an outrage upon
them, they must be content to receive the
maguanimous answer. given by the Queen
OF England, to the Russian Emperor; (,,)
namely, that she was not warranted by
the laws of Engl~nd, in dong the arbitra-
ry act which he required presume that
the British nation, at least. would not
quarrel with as, for following what has
ever been deemed a proud example, in
her own annals. They would not condemn
us, f:r adjudging the decision Of that tri-
bunal to be final, which her subjects, with
choice of jurisdictions before them, elect
ed to resort to, and which, (under the ac-
tual law of Congress OH the subiect,) is
tinal, If found in their favour.
The power now contended for. is no such
mighty boon, in favor Of the state iudicia-
ries, as may have be supposed 1t is
exercised, as / have already remarked.
by the Courts of every civilized nation
On the ground of the contract following the
person of the debtor, the laws of the coun-
try in which it originated, GncludlDg trea-
ties and all,) are to be decided on, by
foreign tribunals. They, indeed, would
wish TO conform to the constructions of the
Courts ct the state in which the contract
originated but their decisions, if other
wise, are nevertheless final. Why shall
the sovereign states of America, sovereign
IN respect of all powers not clearly and
! specifically granted to Congress, not pos
sess tue rights, claimed &c exercised by e.
very other stated Why shall foreign nations
require the head of a confederated govern
| ment, to exercise powers not granted to it
| by the constitution, and which would en-
broil it with the members of which the con-
| federacy is composed? Why shall we run
this risque, and establish these prefersn-
ces, in behalf of the subjects of nations,
| certainly yielding us no equivalent there
for, and, at most, permitsing foreigners to
stand on the same footing, in their Courts,
with themselves
1t is here to be observed, that in most of
the suits depending in this country, in
which foreigners are paFt'es, they will be
plaintiffs and not defendants. They will
not be defendants, because, in general.
they remain in their own countries. AS
Plaintiffs, they have elected Their iurisdic.-
ton, and there is no hardship, in their be-
ing compelled to abide by it and even in
the few cases i'll which they may be Ge
|. PENDANTS here, this election is also extend
ed to them, by the twelfth section OF the
Judicial act; the constitutionality Of which,
however, do not mean to enquire into
In every instance, therefore, 10 which a
state tribunal passes upon the cause of a
foreigner, he has made his election of the
state Judiciary. But if this were even O.
therwise as to foreign defendants in the
state Courts, as, in most instances, TO-
reigncrs will be plaintiffs when suing in this
Country, the rule of construction forclbly
applies, that laws are to be expounded in
relation to those cases, que fir equenfiss
dccidHnt.
have said that this controlling power
was not essential, to preserve the peace of
the NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. going into other con-
slderatlOns, or authorities, on the subject,
1t is sufficient to remark, that the Ameri-
can people have decided, that it is no cause
OF offence TO foreign nations, to have their
causes decided, and exclusively and final
ly decided, by the state tribunals. In that
amendment TO the constitution, by which
the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts is
prohibited, in suits brought against the
states, by foreign citizens, or subjects, this
construction is most undoubted, and has
never been complained Of Since fine adam