Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1816-01-27

must be understood in reference to the in
ferior courts Immediately before mention
cd and il must be In relation TO them and
not TO the state courts, that tie supreme
court is to exercise appellate jui'isdicticn--
Il has been commended that the constitution
contemplated only the obiecs ci appeal,
and not the tribunals from which the APP
peal is to be takel ; and intended to give
TO the supreme court of the United States
appellate jurisdiction i'll all the cases of fe-
deral cognizaaoe. But this argument
proves too much. and what is utterly in ID
rnissible--It would give appellate jurisd'c
ton, as we'll over the coul Is of England 0r
France, as ever the state courts foc, al
though DO not think the state courts are
foreign courts in relation to the federal
Courts. yet consider them not less hl;!s-
iicnden ihan foreign courts
Ii the appellate pow now claimed
Tor the Federal Courts. is z.-on by the
constitution, it is, un0uestionabiv, net Civ
Ell N express terms, but is only deduciblc
by in.erenrc and implication. Let US al
tend Tor momens, TO the eff cts and con
sequences Of such power-'Thr counsel
for the appellee, cl.imed for the Federal
Courts, not only the power TO determine,
finally and conclusively, al. cases which
might be carried before them in due
course OF appeal, but also right, as re-
suliing necessarily and inevitably from the
very nature of appellate power, to deter
rhine finally and conclusivcIy, on the ex-
tent OF their oun jurisdiction. My I'M
preston Is, that tbs right would necess1ri-
" result IRON the grant or appellate pow
Ell. The right to determine the question
OF jurisdiction, or in other words, the cases
to which the appellate power extends,
must rest somewherc.--It must lie vest
ed in the Inferior, or N the Appellate
Court. To vest it in the Inferior Court,
would be to invert the order OF nature, 70
make the Inferior, greater than the .Suhe,'i-
OFT would be TO repose more confidence
in the Injtrior Court, from whose iudg-
ment an app al is allowed, than in the
Suferior Court, which has power to re-
verse the Judgments Of the If ror-and
would often defeat the object OF the grant
OF appellate pOwcr.--It has, accordingly,
been the uniform practice Of all appellate
Courts to decide their own jurisdiction in
relation to the Courts IS to which they are
appellate; and the practice has been
uniformly submitted to by the Inre-
rior Courts. Can it be believed that a
power Involving such consequences, which
would thus place the state Courts at the
&c
them the unwilling Instruments of their u
surpatlon ct state rights, (should such u
surpaticn ever be attempted ) can il be
believed. that such power, if it ha., been
intended to be given, would have been
granted by implication and inference only?
1t was contendcd by the counsel for the
appellee, that if the appellate power Of the
Federal Courts be denied, there will be TO
ether mode by which Congress can extend
the Judicial power Of the United States t.
th- cases Ct federal cOgnizauCe--that there
VIII, consequently, be no uniformity of
decision; that the general government
will be deprived of the power of executing
US laws and treaties; that the purposes
loo which that government was adopted,
VIII be defeated, and that, in many instan-
ces, the peace Of the country win be en-
dangered. If these evils were to follow
our decision, l should nevertheless be con-
atrauned to pronounce it, convinced as I
AN, that the defects of our system Of gov
eminent must be remedied, not by the Ju-
dietary, bat by the sovereign po@er Of the
Peop'e.-But l cannot perceive that any
such evils are likely to arise. The pow
ers vested by the constitution, in the Con-
gress OF the United States, were delegated
Tor purposes essential to the general well
fare, and ought not to be defeated or inn
paired /: and Ihave no doubt that one of
these powers is that Of making all laws,
necessary and proper Tor extending the
judicial power OF the United States, to all
the cases. to which the constitution declares
that that power shall extend.-I must not,
however, be understood as impeachog the
concurrent jurisdicton, eriginGL and f7lqL
OF the State Courts, hrouided the hQrties
ahGH cleo! that jurisdiction. Il Go not un-
derstand the counse. for the appellee rs dc.
nyinS the concurrent original jurisdiction
OF the Stat Courts--nor can 1 perceive
any better reason fer denying their final,
jurisdiction in all those cases which tn,
part es shall submit to their decision-All
the purposes O; the constitution OF the U.
States viii be answered by the erection Of
federal Courts, into which airy party,
plaintiff or defendant, concerned In a case
OF tederei coBGizance, may carry it for adj
Indication FIR, it WAS never intended to
force the parties int those Courts agains,
their will-The right of the hiaiufiG, TO
have his case tried before the federal
courts, is u1questionable, as he NAV insti-
tute MS suit in the State or Federal Cour.e.
at his own DIPLOMA and it VIII be sufficient
Tor the d:fendaat sued in a Sfe G Court.
II the Act Ct Congress shall give him tie
power, TO remove the case at any time be-
fore judgment into the federal Courts i
cannot doubt that Congress may give this
power consistently with the constitution:
for, Otherwise, the judi, ia power Of ihe l.
,. might be culed at The pleas Of any
plaintiff. IF then the plaintiff shall ciccf the
state i,rie IigfiDn ,-,,,s, ,,,.,