Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1816-04-13

tnan mat they may assume the exercise OF
1t whenever they think it advisable. 1t is
clear that Congress nave hitherto acted un
der that impression, and my own opinion
IS IN favor of its correctness. But does it
not then follow, that the jurisdiction of the
State Court, within the range ceded to
the general government, is permitted, and
may be withdrawn whenever Congress
think proper to do so? AS it is a principle
that every one may renounce 4 right in
troGucod for his benefit, we will admit that
they may constitutioually exercise jurisdic-
ton in such cases. Yet surely the general
power to withdraw the exercise Of It, in
cludes in it the right to modify, limit, and
restrain that exercise. his is my do
main, ut not your foot upon it, if you 90
you are susject to my laws. l have a
rlGht To exclude you altogether-I have
then right to prescribe the terms of your
admission to participation. AS long as
you conform to my laws, participate in
peace, but l reserve to myself the right of
Judging how far your acts are oonfor,uable
to NY laws" A ajogy then to the ordina
ry exercise or sovereign authority would
sustain the exercise of this controlling or
revising power.
But 1T is argued that a power to assume
jurisdiction to the constitutional extent
does not necessarily carry with it. right
to exercise appellate power over the state
tribunals.
lhis is mome1tous question, and one
on which L shall reserve myself uncom
United tor each particular case as it shalt
occur 1t is enough at present to have
shewn that Congress has not asserted and
this Court has, not attempted to exercise
that kind OF authority IN personam over the
State which xuDnlI h., -,
the relation of an Inferior responsible body.
indefendent of ther o7vn acguiescence
And l have too much confidence in the
State Tribunals 10 believe that a case will
ever occur in which it will be necessary
for the government to assume controlling
power over those Tribunals. But is it diff
hcuit 10 suppose case winch will call loud
ly tor some remedy or re straint Suppose a
foreign minister or an officer acting reeu-
larly under authority from the UniTea
States, seized to day, tried tomorrow, and
hurried the next day to execution. Such
cases may occur and have occurred in o.
Their countries. The angry vindictive pas
sions ut men have too often made their wav
INTO judic al tribunals, and we Cannot hope
forever to escape their bajeful influence.
In the case supposed, their ought to be
power somewhere to restrain or punish. or
the union must be dissolved At present
the uncomfortable exercise of criminal iu-
i1sdlction is most securely confided to the
State Tribunals. The Courts of the Uni
ted States are vested with no power TO
scrutln &c INTO the proceedings of the State
courts IN criminal cases on the Contrary.
the general government has, III more than
one Instance exhibited their confidence by
wish to vest them with the execution of
th eie v,arol
deed, fatter myself, must be the case
in which the general government could
ever be induced to assert this right. If
ever such case should occur, it will be
time enough to decide upon their right 10
do so.
But we know that by The Sd article of
the constitution, judicial power to a certain
extent is vested in the general government,
and that by the same instrument, power
is given to pass all laws necessary to car
ry into effect the provisions of the consti-
tuition. AT present it is only necessa ry to
vindicate the laws which they have passed
affecting civil cases pending in State Fri
bunals.
In legisiating on this subject, Congress
in the true spirit of the constitution have
proposed to secure to every one the full
benefit of the constitution without forcing
any onesnecessarily into the Courts Of Tie
u. States. With thS view in one class of
cases they have not taken away absolutely
from the State courts all the cases to
which their Judicial power extends, but
left 1T to the plaintiff to bring his action
there originally if he chose or to the de-
PENDENT to force the plaintiff into the
Courts ct the United States, where thew
have jurisdiction, and the former has in
stituted his suit i'll the State Courts. In
this case they have not made it legal for
the defendant to plead to the jurisdiction,
the effect of which would be to put an end
to the plaintiffs suit, and oblige him pro-
badly at great risk or eXpence to institute
a new action but the act has given him
rig It to obtain an order for removal on
a petition to the State Court, upon which
the cause with all its existing ADVANTAGES
is transferred to the Circuit Court of tn.
United States. This, presume, can be
subject to no objection. AS the legislature
has an unquesronable right to make the
ground of removal ground ofplea to a iu.
rlsdiction & the court must then do no more
than 1T is now called upon to do, to wit, to
give an order or judgment, or call it
what we viii, in favor OF the defendant
And so far from asserting the infe r!oritv
OF the state tribunal, this act is rather that
OF superior, inasmuch as the Circuit
Court of the United States becomes bound
by that order to take jurisdiction f the
case.-1hls method, so much more unlike.
ly to Effect otlici delicacy than that which
IS resorted to in the other class of Cases.
might perhaps have been more happflv
applied to all cases which the legisl ltur.
thought it advisable to remove Tom the
State Courts. But the other class of cases.