Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1816-04-13
MARTIN Us. FAIRFAX.


MARTIN Us. FAIRFAX.
1t will be observed in this case, that the court
disavows all intention to decide on the right to
issue mandamus TO the state courts thus leav-
ing us, in my opinion, where the constitution
places us-supreme over persons and cases as
Tar as our judicial powers extend, but not assert
ing any compulsory control over the state tri-
hunals.
In this view acquiesce in their decision, but
not altogether in the reasoning or opinion of my
brother who delivered 1t. Few minds are accus.
toned to the same habit of thinking, and our
conclusions are most satisfactory TO ourselves
when arrived at in cur own way.
have another reason for expressing my OPT.
mon on this occasion. l view this question as
one OF the most momentous importance as one
which may effect in its consequences the perma-
nence of the American union. 1t presents an in
stance OF COLLISION between the judicial powers
OF the union, and one of the greatest states in
the union, on point the most delicate and diff.
cult to be adjusted. On the one hand, the gen
erai government must cease TO exist whenever it
loses the power of protecting itself in the exer-
else OF its cons titutonal powers. Force, which
acts upon the physical powers of man. or iudici.
al process, which addresses itself to his mora
principles or his fears, are the only means to
which governments can resort i'll the exercise of
their authority. The former is happily unknown
X III,
as it shall be sanctioned by the latter but let
the latter be obstructed in its progress by an op
position VIII oh IT cannot overcome or put by, and
the resort must be to the former, or government
is no more.
On the other hand so firmly am 1 persuaded
that the American people can no longer enjoy the
blessings of a free government, whenever the
state soveregnties shall be Frustrated al the feet
of the general government, nor the proud Cum
seriousness of equality and security any longer
than the independence Of judicial power shall be
maintained, cCnsecrated and intangible, thai
L could borrow the language of a celebrated
orator, and exclaim " rejoice that Virginia
has resisted"
Yet here must claim the privilege of express
ing my regret, that the opposition of the high
and truly respected tribunal of that state had
not been marked with little more moderation.
The only point necessary to be decided in the case
then before them, was .oEether then mere 6sryld
10 obey the obey the mandate emandting from this
Court 90 But in the judgment entered on their
minutes, they have affirmed that the case was in
this court c0ram non JUDGE. or in other words,
that this court had not jurisd cton over it.
This is assuming truly alarming latitude of
judicial power Where isitto end 1t is an ac-
knowledged principle of, 1 believe, every court
IN the world, that not only the decisions, but e.
very thing done under the judicial process of
courts not having jurlsdiction are ipso facto void
Are then, the judgments of this court TO be re
viewed in every court of the union and is eve.
ry recovery of money, every change of property
that has taken place under our process tn
be considered as null, void and tortious
We pretend not to more infalbility than other
courts, composed Of the same fraiI terials
which compose this. It would be the height of
affectation 10 close our minds upon the recollec-
ton that we have been extracted from the same
seminaries IN which originated the learned men
who preside over the state tribunals But there
is one claim which we can with confidence assert
in our own name upon those trbunals--tbe pro
found, uniform and unaffected respect which tb;s
court has always exhibited for state decisions
give us strong pretensions to judicial comfy
and another claim may assert, in the name of
the American people.--In this court every state
in the union is represented, we are constituted bv
the voice of the union, and when decisions take
place, which nothing but a spirit 70 give ground
and harmonic can reconcile, ours is the superior
claim upon the comfy of the state tribunals. n
Is the nature of the human mind TO press a favo-
rite hypothesis too far, but magnanimity will al.
ways 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 oil
this appellate jurisdiction over the state decisions
has long been acquiesced in, and when the writ
of error in this case was allowed by the president
OF the court of appeals of Virginia, we were
sanctioned IN supposing that we were TO meet
with the same acquiescence there. Had that
court refused to grant the writ IN the first in
stance, OF had the question Of jurisdiction, or on
the mode of exercising jurisdiction, been made
here originally VIC should have been put on our
guard, and may have SO modelled the process oil