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

lance no more than a mode compell.np the on.
'oste 1ariy to appear before this court and main.
am the iegali'y OF his Judgment obtained before
AN eAemilihcation % the cord is the common
property OF every one who chuses to apply and
p'y Tor 1t, and thus the case and the parties are
Drought before us. And so far is the court it.
sell rom beng brought under the revising pow
er OF tins court that nothing but the case as pre-.
sen'ed by the record and pleadings of the parties
IS considered and the opinions of the court are
never resorted to unless for the purpose of os.
s's.lns this court in forming their own opinion.
Inc absolute necessity that there was for Con.
gress 10 exercise something of revising power
over the cases and parties in the state courts will
appear from this consideration.
suppose the whole extent OF the judicial row
er OF the United States vested in their own court.
YET such provision would not answer all the
ehuS oil the constitution for two reasons
ISL. Although the Plaintiff may in such case
nave the full benefit ofthe constitution extended
to him, vet the defendant would not: as Tho
| pialn'iif might force him into the court of the
state al his election.
@oiy. SupPosing it possible so to Iepislate n,
70 give Tue courts OF the United States original
JURISDICTION IN all cases arising under the const.
tuition, laws, sc. in the words of the ID sec,;or
VI 2u e; "a point on which have some doub,
]','i "i''cn IN time, might perhaps render the
f"o minus hcton OF Great Britain or willing con
sFuct'oh, greatly accumulate he Jurisdiction o
'iose courts) yet very large class of cases would
remain unprovided for Incidental ouestione
would often arise, and as court of competent
Iu u III the principal case, must decide
Sn Sucn questions, whatever laws they arise un.
Huer' endless might be the diversity of decisions
throughout the Union upon the constitution. trea.
les ana laws OF the United States a subject ON
winch the tranquility of the Union internally and
externally may materially depend.
SHOULD feei the more hesitation in adopt;np
the OPINIONS which express in this case. were
not hrmly convincedthat they are practical and
may DC acted upon without compromitt,npr the
harmony OF the Union, or bringing humility upon
'Ie sule tribunals. God forbid that the judici.
Ill power IN these states should ever for a mo.
inert, even in its humblest departments feel i,
doubt OF ITS own independence Whilst adiudi.
eating ON subject which the laws of the country
assign nnally TO the revising power of another.
tribunal, 1t can feel no such doubt An ANXIETY
TO 90 justice is ever relieved by the knowtelpe
that what we.do is not final between the parties
ana no sense Jurisprudence can be felt from the
,'ilo"islge that the parties, not the court, NAV
De summoned before another tribunal. With
tnis view, by means of laws avoiding judgments
obtained in the state courts. in cases over ,yhicL
congress has constituiionally assumed iurisdicti.
on a'u ini1Ictlng penalties on parties who shall
con'Gmac'ous!y persist in infringing the constitu.
tlonal rights OF others-under liberal extension
OF the writ OF injunction andihe hsbeas corpus
40 sunlciendum, fiatter myself that he full ex-
tent OF the constitutional revising power NAV be
secured to the United States, and the benefits of
TO The individual, without ever resortinp- To
compulsory or restrictive process upon the same
triounals--a right which repeat again Congress
mas not asserted, nor has this court asserted nor
does there appear any necessity for asserting.
Inc remaining points in the case beng mere
questions OF practlce, shall make 10 remarks up
on them. W