Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1816-01-04

may from time to time orGain and estab-
iish." Being vested in them by the con-
sttution, " must remain in them exclu-
sively and for ever. What the CONSTITUTE
on has fixed. no law can change
What then IS the character Of the power
which this Court is required, to assume and
to exercise' II is e,nphatically iudc al
power. Ii is a power TO enter upon re-
cord a judgment, although the record of
this court shows that Judgment. final 8,
conclusive, as far as the judicial power of
the state vested in this court is conce med,
has already been entered. IN entering
then the Judgment prescribed. this court
would MT act, by virtue of auy judicial
power derived from the state. That pow
er has been exercised, and the judgement
is beyond its reach. If then new judg-
ment is entered, the court mast act, not
by virtue of the judicial power OF the state,
bat by virtue of the judicial power of the
United States But this is impossible
that power being by the court vested ex-
ciIsvely in the federal tribunals.
The difficulty win not be ohviated by
proving the act required to be done, to be
OF a ministerial, aud not Of a judicial char
acter, unless it Can be also proved, that
Congress have right, 70 impose miuiste-
rial duties on the state judges. THIS will
hardly be aiiirmed-Du,ies of this dsscrip-
ton cannot be imposed even on federal
Judges. This point has been settled by the
judges of the Supreme Court.
On this first question L shall add TO
more. Whatever the decision may be,
the discussion will be useful. Il is that
sort of recurrence to fundamental priuci--
pies. so forcihly recommended by cur
state bill Of rights.
On the 2d question, have but little to
offer. 1t was scarcely touched by Mr..
Wirt, and secno reason for departing far
from his example.
Mr.. Leigh's leading position is, that the
Supreme Court is alone competent to de-
eide, concerning the extent OF its own ju-
rlsdiCtion. His reasoning / understand to
be ths-NVherever there is a concurrent
jurisdiction between the federal and state
tribunals, they form so far one judiciary
systew-they constitute one zvhOie. The
Sapreme Courts Of the United States being
at the head of the system, mus, like all
other Supreme Courts, decide in the last
resott-and that Court having decided this
question, TO inferior tribunal ought to con-
trovert the decision.
Every part of this proposition is preg-
nant with error. Il is denied that the Fee
deral and state judioiaries form one sys-
tenn. or constitute one whole on any ground
whatever, and most especially or the ground
of concurrent jurisdiction. The naked
fact, of concurrent jurisdiction, implies no
connection. The County and Corporation
Courts Lave concurrent jurisdiction, but
no relation, no connection whatever. Tney
are created by the same power, and anne
nable to the same government. Still there
is no point of contact between them. But
the federal and state tribunals derive their
existence from d fferent sources, and are
amenable to different governments. Yet
according to Mr.. Leigh, the fact alone Of
their having concurrent jurisdiction, i'm
plies not only relation, but pre-eminence
on one side. Now in my estimation it i'm
plies equaity-and | see no more reason,
taking this fact solely into view, for ma
king the State Courts parts of the Federal
judiciary. so as TO give the latter an appel
late jurisdiction over them, than for ma
king the Federal Courts parts Of the state
judiciary.
Mr.. Leigh appears to be mistaken also as
to the fact, that this question has been de-
ciled by the Supreme Courts. The cases
adduced by him, have since examined
They only prove that the jurisdiction now
claimed, has been exercised, but not that
the question now discussed has been Geci-
ded. In truth, the point was never pre-
ssnted to the court.
But if it had been decided after argu-
Inent, this court would not be bound by the
decision. The judges would approach it
with great rospeCt--eXamine it with great
care-rehect upon it long 8. intensely-but
after all they would decice as duty and con-
science prescribed.
1t is true, that if this Court were to de
eide any question concerning its own ju
riSdiction, the decision would be admitted
by ali the state tribunals, however excep-
tionable it might be deemed. 1t would be
admitted, and ought to be admitted be-
cause this is the Supreme Court Of the
country and this is the Supreme Court
from no other circumstance than this that
it decides in the last resort, and has the
power to enforce It's decisions against all
the inferior tribunals of the Common
wealth. But MIR. Leigh's argument gratu-
itously bestows a supremacy on the SUI
preme Court Of the u. States in relation to
this Court, although the essence Of the
question is, whether it has that supremacy,
that is, whether it has that appellate pow
er, win CHI, it is conceded, would constitute
a Superior Court.
But, supreme as this court unquestion-
tionably is, in relation to all the cou IS Of
this state, 1t has never yet said, that il a
lone is competent to decide question con
corning the extent of its own jurisdict on.
In fact, orc court must often decide, con-
corning the jurisdiction of another If the
court which decides, happens to be an III
fericr court, its error, if it commit one,
may be corrected. But, still it has dsci-