Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1816-01-27

ROBERTS President. question whether =
state court iAaN rijer any circumstances. take
cognlz 'nce ~ suits tor penalties incurred under
aiercrcaue laws o.: Ia United States, is most
important one which heretofore, il is believed,
mas never been sgi;ated in Pennsylvania.
In the Argument ON the part of the United
States, II h,s been cnnterlcd. tiar even IT the
court shouid not he donnd &c fdk cpsni=Guce still
they nray take cosnzsice vi such suits.
Ii II he at the election Of the court 20 assume
jurisdiction over su:s OF this description, at their
discretion 0rsUn,eRia al iaconcshena may very
properly be urged OH either side. The inconve-
niences which would arise from refusing 10 take
cognza'ice OF these cases, are numerous.
The inae,ime effects would be,
l. In great degree 10 defeat the collection Of
the internal revenue Of the United States.
2. To Afford IMMUNITY to those who should VIZ
ola'e the laws.
). 10 induce great Inconvenience, vexatton
and expense TO those charged with the breach
oi the revenue laws, vel! as those who sue for
the penalty, by nbl;ging The parties to go to the
most remote I:srts ofthe state for trial.
4 To,prevent defendant from having his
conduct investigated by jury of the vcinage
to whom he might be known, and in whom he
World feet confidence, OF his conduct had been
cofrecO to take his trial at place 500 miles dis
tant where he neither Knows any one nor is
known.
It's more remote consequences would be
), That, i'll order 20 collect the revenue ofthe
United States, great additional burthens must
tall on the citizens. The increase of courts OF
The United States, the salaries of the Judges, a.
well AS other occidental exptnccs, must ultimate
iy be drawn from the focSe;a oft'ie people.
AMI lastly, 10 render those laws odious
AS TO am inconvenience Which would arise ON
the other hand, from tphug cogniz ih.e, some
have been suggested in the Argument.
1. That state courts may be overburtliened
with business of the United States, to tie eSclu-
sion OF state business lor the transacting of
Shich, (as it is said) the expences of holding
those courts are paid 6y lie state.
.. That the United States may withdraw BUSH
ness from their own courts, and throw il into the
state courts
And lastly,
That unoSc Influence NAV be obtained by the
Government OF the United States in the State
Courts.
As 10 the first objection, though it is true that
perhaps in few counties, or districts, some in.
convenience may be experienced, by such accu.
mutation, yet, taking an enlarged view of the
SUBJECT rs affecting the state Courts generally il
is believed, no inconvenience is felt and where
1t is III any degree experienced, it is infinitely
100 tr!i'ng 20 be put N competition with those
t'cohVen'ences whichwouid arise from rejecting
tue suits. And as 10 the cxpenccs of the state
courts being borne by the state, there is more os
n""sibihtg than OF substance in the objection
by whom arc the state courts supported uy
the PEOPLE or TUE USlTEn STATES, in their char
scters OF citizens of tie several states respective
~ By whom are thecourts the United States
supported and by wlom are the expenses de-
trayed By he rery anne Persons, in their char.
acter OF the Citizens of the United States
III TIE one species ofcOurts, all the citizens of
the United States are interested, and all are
bound to contribute to their support. In the
other, the citizens OF tic several states have
distinct interest.
The 2i zn,l 2J ,l,,oe.;, -
my mud 80
to the United States Withdrawing their bu.
sIness from Their own courts ana throwing il in,
to the state courts, what grounds have we fron
any motives, which may be supposed TO .ctua,e
,ne tuman mind, to entertain such q suspicion ,
!" may sNspect'hat men win act Incorrectly,
10 promote their interest, to crafty their am
'''f'n but who ever suspected, that any one
wound do an improper act, directly contrary To
ms own interest," or where the evident tendency
81 1T would be 10 defeat his own ambitious viewsp
yet the objection is ioundetlon the idea, that it
Is possible, the Legislature Gf the United S;atcs,
might at some time, be guilty of such strange
Rosurdity.
Tue interest, the ambition and the duty ofthe
government OF the U. S. oil combine TO induce them,
not TO abandon any ofthe pcwers with which The
constitution OF the United States has invested
mem. lore'H'n such powers not only accords
win The interest and ambition of those who are
"''N'NSN'i'S NiitL government Out
w'Ih sacred duty which they owe to themselves
and to the community at large 1t cannot ac
cord with the duties, with .he ambition, with
the interest, or the characters of those who
are appointed to Conduct the government of the
United States, TO divest their swn courts of pow
ers, and invest those powers in the state Courts
shI oo''o to what good or desirable end could
measure of this kind be adopted.
On the contrary five suppose motives of an,
biton 10 influence those wno conduct the ,,oy-
eminent OF the United States, or p ,rhars if di-
vested OF every ambitious fe.ling, they consult
merely the best intentions of;he general govern
ment, taey would cndeayor as far as possible 10
guard the Gpi eminent Of the United States from
dependence ontlIo state governments or their
ohceFs. Many measures, which may be wisely
auoI',ed iorthe common welfare Of tile Whole,
may De'f hard On some part cuiar section of The
country, oreven upon Whole state Does it be.
come ue government ofthe Uniied States. to
put themselves IN situation 20 have the general
welfare compromised, 10 have The measures of
the Seneh government thwartcd, by small sec.
tion OF state or even by a safe itself If Il
docs not, then We may suppose, that if the gov.
ernment OF Inc United States be conducted with
Ordinary prudence, hey VIII enleavor To pre
vent 'le slate wii RI IS GUm int fclinr in Al.
colcerns OF the United states. 1hey will soCr
a' practicable, try tier Own causes "a their owl
COURTS before Judges appointed under tie au.
.,nofly OF the United State;, AID ansSerable tor