Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1816-04-06

ters aud Consuls, and those i'm which a
state Snail be party, the Supreme Court
shall have original jurisdiction. In all the
Other cases before mentioned. the SUPREME
Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both
as to law and facts, with such executions
and under such restrictions as the Compress
snail make" Thus the judicial power, ex-
tenaing to all cases affecting Consuls, and
that portion of it which respects Consuls,
being vested in the Supreme Court. it fol-
lows that as soon as the Supreme Court was
organized by law, it become Immediately
vested with original jurisdiction in every
case IN which Consul might be Affected.
Bat was this an exclusive jurisdiction p
The opinion of the Supreme Court in Mar,
bury vs.. Madison, Cranch ls7, goes far
towards establishing the principle Of exclu-
sive Jurisdiction. The point decided in
that case, was, that where the constitution
nad vested the Supreme Court with apnel-
iate jurisdiction, it was not i'm the power of
Congress to give it original jurisdiction.
ana the whole scope of the argument main,
tanned in the Courts opinion goes TO nrove
that where the constitution Rad o;vam 49, ~;
stnai jurisdiction, it was not in the power
.. congress to give appellate Jurisdiction.
ms VIII appear from the following extract
IRON rom that opinion. IfCongress remains at
,oerty to give, this Court appellate iuris-
a,c!icn where the constitution has declared
.e J!risdlctlon shall be original and orr
Slnal jurisdiction where the constitution
mas declared 1T shall be appellate, the dis
trioutlon ofJurisdiction made i'm the const;.
eution' Is form without substance. Afr.
lhatiVe words are often i'm their oper,t;on
"gssatiGe OF other objects than those affirm
Gus anu In this case negative, or e.rcL,s;,.o
sense must be given to them, or thew have
40 operation at all. 1.-THE soiicitudc If 4he
convention "with respect to our peaca With
iorelgn powers, induced proy;sion that
me supreme Court should take or;r;naj
jurisdiction in cases which might be sun.
PoseG to affect them; yet the clause
:, would have proceeded no further than tn
ProViue Tor such cases if no further res,
|" friction on the power of Congress- b.d
: been intended. That they should have
y appellate jurisdiction in all other casas
|" with such exceptions as Congress- m;oht
!" make, Is no restriction unless the yyosds
!" be deemed exclusive of original ;ur;sd i
I" tion.o Jufisuic-
Now taking this to be the coustryct;o, sc
the constitution, all those parts of the /" act
70 establish the judicial Courts of the IT
ctates," which vest jurisdiction in cases If.
lecung Consuls, in the district or circu;t
courts, would be unconstitutional. and
Void and 1t 1T was intended by the const;-
sutlon' that no inferior Court of the United
States' should have Jurisdiction, it cannot
pe supposed that the State Court was IN.
nave 1t, because there are much stronger
reasons tor denying it to the State Conets
Inah 10 the interior Courts of the u. States
lt VIII DC perceived that the nrinc;nie
snakes the decision in the case of Rev.
VINO was convicted in. the Circu;t Co,,nt
though not that part OF the decision, which
respects the privileges offs Consul. But #
me Two cases cannot be recopciIed. tba
circuit Court must give way. Sunnos;no
however Tor argument sake, that the con-
sutution does not vest the Supreme Conrt
with erctusice jurisdiction, LET us sae wba
ther Congress has not excluded tbe Stato
courts by the judiciary act, PASSED 9atb
september, 1889. BY the 9th section, tba
uistrict Courts are vested eccLlsi1;plD of
"e courts Of tie several States, with Coo,
nlzance oil 6 all crimes and offences 4bsst
!" shall be cognizable under the autbor;tv IF
" the U. States, committed within IT,
respective districts, where no other MN
lslllneht than whipping, not exceeding so
:. Stripes; me not exceeding s 100, or a
TERM Of imprisonment not exceeding six
|" months, is to be inflicted" ConsulS are
embraced in this jurisdiction, as plainly an
pears oy considering the whole section. and
as was declared by the Court in .11aubardt
u.s. ooderstrom, { Bin. 1887 Then comes
tne llth sectIonby which the circuit Courts
are vested with eccLuSiue cognizancp of
!" all crimes ard offences cognizable nnder
. the authority of the u. States. evcant
- where the said act otherwise proyides ~
:" the laws of the u. States shall otharT.;oa
4" direct, current jurisdiction with the D;c.
" trlct Courts, of the crimes aud ofTanco.
" cognlZabIe therein" Does mt this ~
GUIDE the State Courts from iu,isdjction in
the case Of Consuls P ''Oii u"
The only argument aftemnted. mr. ,Lo+
can be devised in support of the negative
Is that no offence is cognizabIe in any conrt
OF the U. States unless coneress Ias Ja
clared IT to be an offence, and nresc-;b,s,,
the punishment. Thisis the onIy cons;do
ration which ever had the least we;obt ~
my mind-but upon mature reflection. n
am unable to deny, that the courts of the
U. States can take cognizance, when find
ut written IN the constitution ttat tbo 81,
Preme Court shall haze jurisdiction in nuI
cases qGeettag a ConsuL-Is he not Affected
IN criminal cases much more than in civil 81
How then can say that the supreme court
has no jurisdiction But how, OF nv ,Vbat
law IS ne to be punished, in case of convics
ton ? Shall he be punished by tbe law Of
Pennsylvania, where The offence was corr.
mitted, inasmuch as there is no Other sx-
press law which reaches his case, and ia +