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


only the decisions, but every thing done
under the judicial process OF courts not
having jurisdiction, are ipso facto Void
Are then, the Judgments OF this Court TO
be reviewed by every Court in the union
and is every recovery OF money, every
change of property, that has taken place
under the process, to be considered as null,
void and tortous?
We pretend not to more iofall bility than
other Courts, Composed of the same frail
materials which compose this 1t would
be the height of aifectation TO close our
minds upon the recollection that we have
been extracted from the same seminaries
IN which originated the learned men who
preside ever the State tribunals. But,
there is one claim which we can, with
confidence. assert in eur own name upon
those tribusals-the profound, uniform &
unaffected respect which this Court has
always exhibited for the State decisions,
give us strong pretensions to Judicial conf
ty and another claim ] may assert, in the
name of the American peopie.-In this
Court, every State in the union is repre-
sented, We are constituted by the voice OF
the union, and when decisions take place,
which nothing but spirit to give ground
ana harmonize can reconcile, ours is the
superior claim upon the comfy of the State
tribunals. It is the nature of the human
mind to press a favorite hypothesis too
far, but magnanihity will always be ready
to sacrifice the pride of opinion to public
welfare
In the case before US, the collision has
been on our part wholly unsolicited. The
exercise OF this appellate jurisdiction over
the State decisions, has long been acqujes-
ced IN, and when the writ Of error in
tIis case was allowed by the President of
the court OF Appeals of Virginia. We were
sanctioned IN surprising that we were to
meet with the same acquies cence there
RAD that Court refused to grant the writ
ID the hrst instance, or had the question of
the jurisdiction, or on the mode of exe5cis-
ing jurisdiction, been made here originally.
we should have been put on cur guard, and
may nave SO modelled the process of this
Court as to strip it of the offensive form of
mandate. In this case, it may have been
Drought over to what probably the 25th
section Of the judiciary act meant it
should be, to wit, an alternative Judgment
eWher that the State Court may finally
proceed at its option, to Carry into effect
the Judgment of this Court, or If it dec lined
uoins so. that then this Court would Dro-
ceed to ex cute it. The words IS. nse''
ana operation" of the 25th section on
TINS SUBJECT, merit particular attention. In
the preceding section, which has relation
TO causes brought up by writ of error from
the Circuit Courts of the United States
thls Sourt is INSTRUCT d not to issue execu-
S,ohS' Dut to send a special mandate to the
Nlrcult Court to award execution thereuD-
on In case OF the Circuit Courts refusal TO
ooey such mandate there could b.. no
uouot' Ss to Interior measures, compulsory
.eaAHle s might upquestionably be rsserted
to' NOT, indeed, was there any reason to
suppose mat they ever would refuse and,
therefore, there is no provision made for
authorising this Court to execute its own
judgment in cases of that description. But
not so IN cases brought up from the State
courts. The trainers of that law plainlv
Ioresaw that the State Courts may r fuse;
ana not beng willing to leave ground for
tie implication, that compulsory process
must Ne resorted to, because no specific
provision was made, they have provided
the means, by authorisng this Court, I'm
case OF reversal of the State decision, to ex
ecute its own Judgment. In case of rez,er-
SdL only, was this necessary, for in case of
afilrmance, this collision would not arise
IL is true, that the words Of this section are
that tins Court may, in their discretion.
proceed to execute its own judgement
But these words were very proDerlv n,,t
IN, that 1t might not be made imperative
upon this Court to proceed indiscriminete-
" IN this way as it could only be necessa-
ry IN case of the refusal of tn Site Courts
and this idea is fully confirmed by the
words OF the 18th section, hich restrict
TINS Court in issuing the writ Of roandamus.
50 as to confine it expressly to thoye
Courts which are constituted by the u.
States
In this point of view, the legislature is
completely indicated from all intention To
violate the Independence of the State Judi.
cliries. Nor can this Court, with any
more correctness, have imputed to it sim
liar intentions. The form of the mandate
issued IN this case, is that known to appel
late tribunals, and used in the ordinary
cases OF writs of error from the Courts Of
the Us. 1t will perhaps not be too much
IN such cases, to expert of those who are
conversant in the FORMS fctions ard tech
uicality of the law, not to give to the
proc IS of Courts too literal construction
lhey should he considered with a view to
the ends they are intended TO answer, and
the law and practice in whc they oriei
nate. In this view, the mandate was no
more than a mode Of submitting to that
Court, the opinion which the 25th section,
holds out to them.
Had the decision &C the Court Of Virei-
MIA been confined 70 the point Of their legal
obligation, to carry the judgment OF this
Court into effect, ] should have thought it
aas.s. aaaE -. Il.