Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1816-01-30


short of that Of the former Confederation
The great and radical vice in that system
was in the principle oGlegis,ation for States
or Governments, AS acknowledgements
from the individuals of whom they consist.
On nearer view of the present system, it
VIII be found 70 have escaped The enfeeb-
Ing consequences of that principle for
though, in relation to the obiec and limi-
tauon OF It's powers, and 20 the sources
from which II derives those powers, it
may be deemed a fedora! government, vet,
in relation To the objects on which it oper-
ates, It is certainly a national one. Lee
gisiatng fer Individuals, it contains, within
itself, (sse the Foderalst,) every power
requisite TO the complete execution of the
trust cGnii;.cd to IT, free from every
other controi, but regard 20 the public
good, and the sense Of its constituents. The
argument, then, that, unless the State
Courts admit the right OF ,Ppe'l TO the
Supreme Court, the grea. rational objects
OF the Federal Government will be unit
tainabl' ., loses all It's force. If it were
true, that the cases of national jurisdiction
enumerated IN the Constitution could be IL
naiiy and conclusively decided in the State
Courts. without power in the General
Government, through it's own Courts, to
take jurisdiction or those cases either be-
fore ur after those decisions. as it may be
important to the nation, there would I've
some caue tor alArn--but the foregoing
remarks lead TO no such conclusion. (G9
The principle on which the State Courts
take jurisdiction of the cases enumerated
IN the CONSTITUENTS common to all Courts
having jurisd ction of the controversy be-
fore them. They decide in conformity to
the law of any Government that may come
IN qucstion(c) This principle does net de
ny to the Federal Government, in common
with other Governments, through its own
Courts, to decide the same case where the
parties are within its jurisdiction. With
ont the meaus of enforcing and giving, to
it's Treaties, it's Laws an it's Acts, IAN uni
form constru ton, it would b. incompetent
TO attain the great objects of it's Institution.
Moving within the circle OF it's consitu-
tional powers, its authority will be exer-
cised, in a great degree, without the range
OF the State authorities. The difficulty
which presents itself to the operation of
the General and State Governments, on
the same objects, has been felt in many Ca
ses but 1t is one which grows out OF the
system itself, and, without change of that
system, cannot be entirely obViated.
That it may be much diminished by a
prudent exercise ofthe powers appertain-
ing to each, has been proved by expert
ence. Legislating for individuals who are
equally the citizens of the General and
State Governments. the authority of that
Government must be considered as para
mount, which under far construction Of
the Constitution has the conclusive power
to act or to legislate, On the subject. The
oath 10 support the Constitution, with the
strong responsibility to those from whom
Ill \
sanctions against the exercise of power not
given by the people. That oath, which is
prescribed by the sixth article, imposes no
subordination upon those to whom it is
adninistered-it is common to all who
exercise power under either government
The obligation which is imposed by the
same article on the Judges in all the states
to respect the constitution, the laws and
all treaties which shall be made under
the authority OF the United States, furnish
IS no ground of objection to the prece-
ding remarks. 1t Cannot be construed to
give to the Supreme Court power to en-
for, c the responsibility of the State Judges
under that obligation. The article inpiies
nothing more than it declares !; that is,
that the constitution, and the laws of the
United States which shall be made in pur-
suan~e thereof, and all treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the authority
OF the United States, shall be the Supreme
Law eff the Land On the contrary, it
leaves 10 the State Judges the right to en-
quire whether the laws, treaties, &c. have
been made in pursuance of the Constitu-
ton. Standing on the ground Of that arti-
c,e alone, il there was no other, j should
feel myself compelled TO enquire whether
the 25th section of the Act OF Congress,
under the authority of which the mandate
in question was awarded, is in pursu .n1e of
the Constitution or repugnant thereto. -
On the ground Of mere implication, or
doubtful inference, to decide that a law is
unconstitutional, would at all times he
highly improper. The Judge ought to be
deeply impressed that the law in question
is in direct opposition 10 the plain meaning
of that instrument; and, feeling that i'm
preston, he would be unnindful of the
great trust couhdcd to him, and Of the So
cred obligations OF duty, if he were to
shrink from the decision. Under the full
influence Of that impression, I am con
strained 10 declare it TO be my opinica that
so much of tn 25th sect on Of the Act of
Congress, in pursuance of which the man
date in this Case was issued, SIS requires Of
this Court to exercise the ju &c al powers
therein prescribed, IS violation OF the
Constitution that the Writ Of Error was
improvidently allowed by one of the Judg-
es Of this Court and that obedience to the
mandate ought to be refused.
(b) The effect oFthe extension Of the appellate