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

(On special mandate from the
Hunter, Supreme Court of the U. s.
JUDGE FLEMING'S OPINION.
This cause has been justly regarded as
one of the first Importance, as il involves
in it great national and constitutional
question of extreme delicacy; & has there
fore been deliberately argued with great "a
biity, by some of the most distinguished
characters of this bar ; and has also recei-
we'd from the court the greatest attention,
and the most mature deliberation. It is
fortunate and satisfactory to find, that the
opinion of the Court is unanimous on the
important occasion, though we have to re-
gret, that, from 4 peculiar circumstance,
one of our enlightened and worthy brethre II
did nor sit in the cause whose opinion.
(presumng he would have concurred with
the rest of the Court would have added
weight to the decision.
The question now to be decided. is not
whether this Court erred in the case of
Hunter VS.. FdirJdc-but, whether, if SO,
the Supreme Court of the u. S. has juris-
diction to correct the error
1t seems unnecessary for me to travel a
gain over the extensive field of discussion
that has been so amply and ably explo-
red by the judges who have preceded noe,
reasoning, but be content with briefly noti-
cling few of the most prominent points in
the cause in doing which, however, re-
petition of many of the remarks already
made, cannot be we'll avoided.
/ shall enquire, LIST, whether the 25th
section of the judicial act of Congress, so
far as it respects the case before us, is JUS
tilted by the Constitution AMI Cd wheth-
er this case is comprchended within the
provision OF that section And, as a pre-
urinary to those inquiries, Shall take the
liberty of quoting few passages in cell
ebrated book, styled the Federaiist. which
was often cited in the arguments Of this
Cause.
The Author, Jealous friend Of the con-
stituticn, avowedly an advocate for its a
doption oy the States and writing to obvi
ate some objections that had been m9de re-
specting It's powers, observed in Volume
Cd, page Goth, " that if the govern
ment be national with regard to the
operation of its powers it changes its
aspect when we contemplate it in relation to
the ertent of its powers.-The idea of a
national government, (says the book,) in
wolves in il, not only an authority over the
individual citizens, but an indefinite supre-
macy over all persons and things. so far as
they are objects of lawful government
Among people consolidated into one ma
tiSn, this supremacy is completely vested
in the natic~ i legis ature.
" Among communities united for par
ticular purposes, it is vested haTtiy in the
general, and rarity in the municipal legis-
latures. In the former case, all local au-
thorities are subordinate to the supreme,
and may be controlled. directed, or abo-
lished by it at pleaSure.--In the latter
h. ~ ~ 81
local o. municipal authorities form distinct
and ndehendent portions Of the supremacy,
no more subject, within their respective
spheres, to the general authority, than the
general authority is subject to them, within
lis own sphere.-In IL relation, then,
the proposed government cannot be deem
ed national one, since its Jurisdiction ex-
tends to certain enumerated objects only I;
and leaves 10 the several states residual
ny and ipviolabie sovereignty over all other
objects"
The legislatures of the several states,
not satisfied that the above Just princip pies
would always govern, iii the construction
Of, or expounding the Constitution of the
United States, obtained an amendment
thereto, explicitly declaring that " The
ffozUerS not delegated to the United States,
by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to
Nne STATES, are TSScINeu 10 Jne states res
poctvely, or to the people"
Let MS now apply those incstimable prin-
ciples to the case under consideration, and
enquire whether the 25th section of the Ju-
d'cial act Of Congress, so far as it respects
the cnse before us. is justified by c corr
stitution BY the third article of which
section the St." The Judicial power o.
the United States shall be vested in one
Supreme Court, and in such Inferior
Courts as the Congress may, from time t
time or lain ami establish IN t naming
nor squirting at, tire State Courts).--Seo
ton the 2d---in the judicial ho7Oers of th'
Courts, the jurisdiction seems to be eXclu
sively confined to those to be ordained ant
established by Congress--A second para
graph of the same section says That il
ali cases affecting Ambassadors and othe
public officers, Consuls, &c. the Supremt
Court shall have original jurisdiction.-Ir
all other cases before mentioned the ga
prcme Coure snail have appellate juris
dictiot., both as TO law and fact with sucl
exceptions, aud under such regulations. 2
tue Congress shall make"--wliicl
exceptions and regulations must, con
ceiye, relate 50 such Inferior Court