Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1816-02-01
INTERESTING CASE.
VLRGAvz8. COURT OF .appEa1 S.

} Ona special Mandate from the Su :.
Martin si s preme Court ofths u s. 5.
JUDGE ROANE'S OPINION.
This case comes before the Court, upon
special mandate from the Supreme
Court of the United States. That man,
date rscites Judgment of that Court,
which reverses Judgment of this Court,
and commands the judges of this Court, to
carry the reversing judgment into execu-
uon. ih%e Judgment was rendered upon
writ OF error, sued out TO the Judgment
OF tins Court. under the provision OF the
twenty nth section of the Judicial act of
the United States, (a) upon the ground. as is
Supposed mat tins Court had decided "a
gainst treaty, on a right clamed under a
treaty. The judgment Of this Court had
reversed judgment of the District Court
of Winchester, rendered in favour of Denny
Fairfax, under whom the appellee, MAR
t'n,) Claims, in an action of eiectment.
Drought against him by the appellant, aud
hao requiredthe Court below, to carry the
same INTO executioR--In that action case
was agreed between the parties, in which
the defendant relied upon the treaty of
pesce, between the United States and
Great Britain: But that treaty constituted
only one link OF his defence or title There
are also many other distinct facts or find
ings, comprized in the case agreed, each
OF which is, perhaps. also dvisible into o.
Their facts or findings: and as the Judgment
OF tins court, as appearing on the record,
is merely general, and does not state the
particular point on which it was rendered.
1t may be, Gas the fact really was, in rela
ton to the Judgment of this Court,) that
neither judgment was rendered upon the
construction of the treaty. ~
he question which now arises, upon
this mandate, is ofthe first impression in
this Court. and of the greatest raoment.-
he Court, consequently, invite. the mem
oers OF the oarto investigate it, for it's in
formation; several of whom, in addition
TO the appeiiec's counsel, discussed it, ac-
cordinsly, IN a very full and able manner:
since VIII CHI, it has received the long and
deliberate consideration of the Court. This
course OF the Court, to say nothing of it's
general character, should have spared the
appellee's counsei the trouble, of exhort-
ing (6) this High Tribunal, to divest itself
OF allimproper prejudices, in deciding on
tbs important question. Those counsel
were also pleased to warn US of the conse-
quences OF decision, one way, in refer
ence, principally, to the anarchical prin-
ciples prevalent at the time of the argu-
ment, tc) IN particular section of the u
mon. They ought to have remembered,
tnat TINS Court did not select the time for
bringing this case TO decision, (d) and
that 1t is not for it, to regard political con-
sequences, IN rendering it's Judgments
They should also have recollected. that
there Is Chaiybds to be avoided, swell
as a Scylla that centripetal, as well as
a centrifugal principle, exists in the gov
ernment; and that no Calamity would be
more to be deplored by the American peo-
pie, than vortex in the general govern
ment, which should ingulph and sweep a.
way every vestiSe of the State constitute
ons.
l will consider the case before us, under
the following general points of view:
l VIII enquire--1st, whether the twenty
nth section ofthe judicial act, so far as
II relates to the case before us, is justified
by the constitution IDLY, whether this
case comes within the actual provision of
that section! and 3dly, whether this Court
has power to declare the negative of both
or either OF these propositions, if it's opni-
on should incline it to do So?
Before l go, particularly, into these
questions, it may be proper to rid the
case, OF the influence of number of OPT
MONS, which we're quoted by the appel
lees counsel. Among many others of
minor character, and which, therefore.
VIII not be particularly noticed, they were
pleased to quote, very much at large, the
opinions contained in the publication STYLED
y The Fedcralist," and those delivered by
the members of Congress, at the time Of
passing the act in question. While | shall
never hold myself bouud, by the opinions of
auy individuals, further than they appear
to me to be correct, it may be proper to
give an answer to the pretcDsions of such
as challenge superior degree Of con-
hdence. OF this Character, the two
classes Of opinions just mentioned, may
plaus bly, be supposed to partake. With
respect to the work styled =" the Federal
list, while It's general ability is not denied,
It is liable to the objection, of having been
mere newspaper publication, wri. ten in
the heat and hurry of the battle, If may
so express myself,) before the constitution
was adopted, and with view to ensure
It's ratification. It's principal reputed au-
thor was, an active partizan of the consti-
tuition, and a supposed favourer Of a conso-
lldated government. (e) 1t is also liable
to the objection, that while it contains an
ample stock Of principles, to bear out eve
(G) Laws Of u. S. VOL 1, D. 81.
(6) Not literally, but in Ell, ct