Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1816-02-03

as, by the first section of the article.
Congress may, from time to time, ordain
and establish and cannot, my appre-
heusion. by fair construction, have rsla-
ton to the STATE Courts there having
been no power delegated TO Congress, to
interfere, or meddle with them and which
do not appear by any expression IN the
Instrument to have been in the contem-
plat;on of the fr,mers ofthe constitution -
for if they had been so, ard the State
Courts were intended to have been sub
ect to the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court of the United States, a
short sentence, or very few words. would
have put the matter out of all doubt :-and
cannot presume that, when the collect
ed wisdom Of the several States was con-
vened. and, for weeks, were celebrating
on proper system of jurisprudence, for
the government of the Union. so impor
tant a matter, had the State Courts been
in contemplation, could have escaped the
notice of them all and have been left to
uncertainty ard conjecture!
1t appears to me then, that the 25th
section of the judicial act of Congress, not
being made in pursuance oil the Constitu-
ton, so far as it respects the case before
US. was not justified by the Constitution
But admitting for a moment, that l be
mistaken on this point, proceed to en-
quire,
III. Secondly, whether this case is COM
priced within the provis on of that section
The enacting words Of the section are.
that final judgment in any suit in the
highest Court of law or equity of state,
in which a decision in the suit could be had,
where is drawn in que stion the validity OF
treaty, or statute of, or an authority eX
ercised under the United States, and the
decision is against their UGiiaity,may be re-
examined, and reversed or affirmed in the
Supreme Court of the United States, upon
a writ of error, &c. But no other error
shall be assigned or regarded, as ground
of reversal, in any such case as aforesaid,
than such as appears on the face OF the
record, and Immediately respects the be
fore mentioned questions of validity, or
construction of the said Constitution, trea-
ties, statutes, commissions orauthor ties in
dispute" The only article enumerated in
the above recited clauses brought in ques-
ton in the case of Hunter VS.. FairJa1, on
which the mandate under consideration
was founded, was the validity of the treaty
between the United States and Great Bril-
tain, in the year 17S3-and does it ap
pear on the face of the record that
the decision was against its validity p
In my apprehension it does not SO APP
pear; for the very reverse was the fact:
and if that cause had depended altogether
IN the vahdity Of The treaty, the Judgment,
on the appeal to this Court, would have
been in afYirrnance of that of the Court be-
low, in favour of Fairfax, or rather, of his
heir Philip Martin, the Appellee.
1t is worthy of remark, too, that when
Denny Fairfax was impleaded by Hunter
in the District Court of Winchester, he
had an election to remove the cause into
the nearest Circuit Court of the u. States !;
of which privilege he did not think proper
TO avail himself, but chose to rest his cause
with the State Courts.
1t appears to me, first, that the 25th
section of the jude ial act of Congress, so
far as it respects the case before Us, is nor
justified by the constitution.--And second
ly, that this case is not comprised within
the provision of that section.--And am of
opinion, therefore, upon both points. that
it is inexpedient for this Court to obey
the mandate under consideration.-And
that is the unanimous opinion OF the
Court.