Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1816-02-01


Under that act, the appeal equally les to
the Supreme Court OF the. United States,
where such uniformity already exists, and
IS denied where il is W sn,ing. 1t, for ex-
ample, the Supreme Court OF the United
States has decided against treaty, and
the Supreme Court OF state decides the
same way, there this uniformity already
exists. and yet the appeal is allowed. If
on the other hand, the former Court de-
cides against a treaty, and the latter in Ia
vor of it. this uniformity is wanting, and
yet the appeal is denied!
The preceding remarks apply, q foy.:ori,
to the limited and partial power Of rever-
sal, conferred On the Supreme Court, by
the twenty fifth section of the judicial act.
1t is, indeed, the natural offspring of the
parent from which it has proceeded. The
novel spectacle of judgment being final
or not, AS it may chance to be one side or
the other, and of Court being of the last
resort or otherwise, as its decision NAV
happen to have been fer one or other of
the parties, is worthy of system. which
only admits the Judges TO be impartial on
one side OF a given question That, how
ever, IS chimIra, existing only in the
imagination of former Congress. 1t was
an after-thoughs. well calculated to ag-
grandize the general government, at the
expence of those of the states; to work
consolidation of the coniederacy; and can
only be pretended to be justified, by the
broad principles of construction, viii II
brought the alien and sedition laws into our
code l would ccnsign it to common
tomb with them, as members of the same
family, and originating in the same era of
our government.
1t was contended, by the Appellee's
Counsel, that the power now in question.
results to the Supreme Court, from the
concurrent power given to the State Courts
over the same subjects. The idea of a
concurrence of power, is at war with that
of one of the parties possessing power Of
reversal and control over the other 1t
may be further remarked, that this con-
current power is not derived to the State
Courts, from any grant or concession in
the Constitution. 1t results to them, OH
general principles. tbs common to them,
with the courts Of every other civilized
nation, in respect of civil causes-and no
argument based merely on this principle,
Can erect the Courts Of the States into in
ferior federal Courts. or give the Courts
OF the Union Il control ng power over
them, which would not, under like cir.
cumstanCes, have a co-extensive effect
over those of every other country.
have already alluaei to another o5-
lection, to the power granted by The TWEEN
ty fifth section of the judicial act, and
that is, that it erects the Courts of the Sc
vcral States into Inferior Courts, in a man
| ner not warranted by the Constitution
The Inferior Courts contemplated by the
Constitution, must not only be " ordained
and established" by Congress, but the
Judges thereof, must be appointed by the
.,,I 81.
| mission, and compensation for their servi-
ces. Nothing of this sort exists in rela-
ton to this Court, and yet, guead the case
before us, this Court is taken into the SER
| vice of tine U. States, and made one of their
inferior Courts. This is proved, both by
the reversal and mandate now before US,
| and by the emauation of the writ OF en-
| rcr. That writ is defined To be, ga com =
mission by which the Judges of Superior
Court, are authorised to examine the re-
cord on which judgment was given in
| an Inferior Court, and to affirm or reverse
| the fame" (y) This Court, therefore,
being called upon to execute the duties of
Court, inferior to tn" Supreme Court of
the United States, and yet not being con-
stitutIonaily established as such, ought not
| to exercise the same.
| III. am now to enquire secondly, wheth-
ertheicase before us comes with the pro-
vision of the twenty fifth section of the iu-
| dicial act.
That section provides, "thac a final
| Judgment or decree, in any suit in the
| highest Court of law or equity of State,
! in which decision in the suit could be had
where is drawn in question, the validity of
| treaty, or statute of or an authority ex-
/ ercised under the United States, and the
decision IS against their Uali1iity, or where
is drawn in question, the validity of sta
tute OF, or an authority exercised under any
| State, on the ground of their being rspug-
! nant to the Constitution, Treaties or Laws
of the United States, and the decision is
| in favor Of such their paliciify, or where
IS drawn in question, the construction of
| any clause OF the Constitution, OF of trea-
| ty. or statute of, or commission held un-
| der the United States, and the decision is
against the title, right, privilege or ex-
emptIon, specially set up or claimed, by
| either party, under such clause Of the said
| Constitution, Treaty, Statute or Commits
| sion, may be re-examined and reversed.
| or affirmed, i'll the Supreme Court IF the
| United States, upon a Writ of Error, the
| citation being signed," &c. But it is further
| provided, therein, that "Ho 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, AID Immediately RESPECTS the be-
| fore mentioned questions of vaIidfty or
| construction, of the said Constitution,
Treaties, Statutes, Commissions or auth.
critics in dispute"
-