Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1816-01-27

"lu' potser lie state courts are ALREADY lnv est
ell with 20" er, determine all civil ard cr.ii,-
nal causes, arising ~ithin the Limits of the.,. iu-
r'sdction respectively, aud al tr.nsiiory actions
arise where they may :-cbiiGm CT cant lctRs san,
,inHius loci.
4, has heen urged aFcason for excluding suits
of the United States, that the STATE courts are
na;ained al the expense of tie particular states
tnT the benefit of their citizens Respectively
This objection would apply with much greater
force tn exclude the citizens or sub, Gets OF 60
Reign natious.
Trey certainly do not contribute 10 the support
OF the particular state courts vet their suits are
not excluded. Is il the Unit ed States alone when
appearing IN the state courts in the charater of
suitor, that shall be elected Are the claims Of
individuals, altogether unconnected with tie
state, of right to have all their claims enforced
and shall claims arising under the laws of the
United States, laws made by common con ,ent of
all the citizens Of the United States for the com
mon benefit of all, be rejected AS TO claims
arising on contracts made by Individuals with the
United States, it seems difficult 10 conceive up.
on what correct principles they could be exci,l-
ded. Not only private citzens, subjects of 10
reign countries but foreign SOY ereigns themselves
may be received as suoFs in courts
Upon what ground shall suits arising under the
revenue laws oil the United STATES be rejected / /
1t is saiH they arc PESGL LAWS: be it so : and
what is the consequence Are they penal laws
of a foreign gov ca Imenti An ide: SD cxtravagant
cannot be entertained The re.a laws, indeed,
ot a foreign country could not be enforced; for,
although the cnrn:ty ofnations admits of 4 reco.
very, on civ. Contract, mad lie in foreign soye.
rei5nty, in the decs,oI Whereof the les issi Slsli
prevail, which law snail he proved IS i1cs, ye,
TO enforce their penal statutes, or laws would
Involve strDnge ;bsurtiity The penal laws oc
every country arc enforced not only against the
citizens who ransgress, but every man who
ueadS the soil is subjected 10 tl;en and 10 theu: a.
iole,as respects al crime, misdemcanors, and
msteazances, which subject to punishment or
forieitures.
That the constitution ofthe United ,ates SC uui-
Tersaily obligatory throughout the United States
wii not be denied. Every officer not oniv al the
federal government, but Of the state government
aiso, is sworn to support it. New, the SIKH, al
ticie of that constitution contains the following
provisions, viz This constitution, and he hi..s Ct
The United States, which shall be made in pursli.
tce thereof, and al treaties made or which shall
he made under the authority Of the United States,
shall be fhe snprsn,e iGIS Of the land; and THE
JUDGES IN EvEnr STATE 5HALL NE RoryD THERE
Mt, aHy thing nfte constitution Of Ga.us Of e,ly state
20 Ns contrary hereof notwithstanding.
At the first session Of the Congress of the Uni
ted States held under the constitution, in the
a." Gct 10 establish the jH!iridi courts of me Tinted
&0tes,' passed on the 24th September, 1899, We
find Congress declaring in what cases the courts
cf the United States should have crc'Rssue iuris-
Giction, and where jurisdiction concurrent with
the state courts. refer to this act, not ON &C.
count of any particular provision contained in H.
but rs = conIemporaneous exposition Of the con
stituiion, iii respect 10 the powers which Congress
derive under il, oS determining where the fede-
raj courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction, and
wha' E jurisdiction concurrent with the courts of
the several states
The laws on which the present question arises
are enacted by the legislature ofthe United States
pursuant to the powers with which the whole
people have invested them, by tie constitution
of the United States They are, in the words OF
the constitution, the supreme law of the land, ,
by which every individual in the United States
Is bound. They are enacted for the general be-
ieflC OF all the citizens OF the United States
The revenue for the collection of which the law
IN question provides, is collected for the mutual
benefit of all the citizens The money arising
from The collection belongs to them. Every fraud
committed against the revenue is n fraud by
Which every citizen OF the United States suffers
unless II be the fraudulent individual. All then
aye interested in enforcing those laws. What
shall prevent state court from enforcing them.
The difficulty seems to have arisen, from 3,
want OF distinguishing the true grounds upon
which the suits, in which the United States my
be party are determinable in Tie courts of the
United States.
The lid art. OF the constitution of the United
States, l, provides, that the judicial power
OF the Uni ed States shall be vested in one su.
IN'"N SOuI'J lh lillcI4DT as Iils'
Congress may from time to time ordan and es.
tablisl"
This Ortiole vests in Tie general government
power essential TO the supreme authority in a
nation
1t invests them with the pEIv1LEGR of having all
then causes determined in their own courts; but
this, like every ether privilege, may be waved
by the ID of the IIId art il is declared. tina,
6 tie judicial power of the United States shall
extend TO all cases in law ard equity. arising I'm.
der the constitution and laws Of the United
States aud treaties made, or which shall be made
under Their authority 10 all cases affecting am.
bassadors and other public ministers and con.
Siis 10 all cases OF admiralty & maritime iuris.
dicton TO controversies, to which the United
states shall be a party TO controversies between
two or more states between state and the c,ti-
zens of another state between citzers of diff
fcreDt states; between citizens OF the same state
claiming lands under grants OF different states
and between state, or the citizens thereof, and
t)relgn states. citizens, or subjects +"
Now, il is evident that this section, from the
beginning TO the end, coniers, PRIVILEGES, which,
may may not be waived. Citizens of die
fercnt states haze right 10 prosecute their
claims IN tie federal courts Eut can IL be ina.
gihed that they mny not waive the privilege II
not only may be, but actually is waived, in three
cases out OF tour perhaps ~ nine cases OFT or
ten. Shall II be said hat IN ambassadors or other
public minister, MAJ not waive Ills privilege
And fit may be waved by these shall il moi lac