Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1816-04-13

m nun at the commencement OF the suit,
\, has ceased before judgment, ard with
out this amendment he could not have
judgment. But suppose the suit were re-
atty Instituted to obtain possession of a
ieasehold, and the lease expire before
Judgment, would the court permit the party
20 amend in opposition to the right of the
case? On the contrary, ifthe term for
maiiy declared on, were more exclusive
than the lease in which the legal title was
founded, could they give judgment for
mere than facts 1t must be recollected
that under this Judgment zvrit Qfrestitu
non is the fruit of the law. This, ia as
very nature, has relation to, and must be
Rounded upon, pre- sent existing right at
the time of judgment. And whatever be
the cause which takes tn right away, the
remedy must, in the reason and nature of
Isings, fall with it.
When all these incidental points are dis
posed of, we find the question finally redu-
eed to this-does the judicial power of the
United States extend to the revision of de.
clsions or State Courts, liz cases arising I'M
Ger treaties! But, in order to generalise
the question, and present it In the true
form IN which it presents IF in this case,
we viii enquire whether the constitution
sanctions tie exercise OF rev;s NC power
over the decisions of State Tribunals, in
those cases 70 which the judicial power of
the United States extends?
And here it appears to me, that the
great difficulty is on the other side. The
real doubt, whether the State Tribunals
Can constitutionally eXercise jurisdiction in
any OF the Cases to which the judicial pow
CT OF the United States extends.
Some cesson of judicial power is con-
fsa,,, l. es,.l -, Il
stitution That which is coed Can no
longer be retained. In one of the Circuit
Courts of the United States. it has been
decided with what correctness l will not
2 say that the cession of power to pass an
uniform act of bankruptcy, although not
acted on by the United States, DERIVES the
states OF the power of passing laws to that
effect. With regard to the admiralty and
maritiuae jurisdiction, it would be difficult
Co prove that the States could resume it,
If the United States should abolish the
Courts vested with that u.isdicton-yet,
At Is blended with the other cases of iuris-
diction, in the I'd sect. of the Sd art and
coded in the sane words.
But it is commended, that the 81 section
the Sd article, conrGins no express ces-
sion of jurisdiction That IL only vests a
power In Congress TO sssume jurisdiction
to the extent therein expressed. And I'M
der this head arose the discussion on the
construction proper to be given o hat ar
tice. On this part of the case, shall not
pause loEs. The rules of construction.
where the ture OF The instrument is as
CERTAIN, are familiar to every one.-
10 me the constitution appears, in
every line II, to be a contract, wh,ch in
legal language, rCay be deromiy ated tri-
~ go no a.
States and the United States. Icis return
Ans; in a circle u contend that il prof sses
e. he ths exclusive act of the people, for
what have tie people done but to form
this compact? That the states are recog-
Missed as parties to 1t, is evid mt from varl-
Gus passages, and particularly that in
which the United States guarantee to each
state republican form of government
The security and happiness of the whole
was the obje t, and to prevent dissension
and collision, each surrendered those DOW
ers which might nake them dangerous 20
each other. We'll aware ofthe sensitive
Variability of sovereign States. where their
wills or interests clash, they placed them
selves, with regard to each other, ON the
footing of soveregns upon the OCEAN
where power is mutually conceded to act
upon the individual, the national yes
ssl mus remain unviolated. But to re-
move all ground for jealousy and com
plant, they relinquish the privilege Of be-
ing any longer the exclusive arbiters of
their own justice, where the rights of 9TH
ers come in question, or the great interests
of the whole may be affcc;ed by those feel
ings, part.alities or preiudces, which they
meant to put down forever.
Nor Shall enjer INTO minute discussi
On th ming Ot thP la Of l,in
sectto. have seldom found much good
result from hypercritica severity, in exa-
mining the distinct force of words. Ian.
guage is essen. ally defective in precision
more so than those are aware of, who are
not in the habit of subjecting it to philolo-
gical analysis. In the case before us, for
Instance, a rigid construction might be
made, which would annh'iate the powers
intended to be coded. The words are,
" shall extend to )" but that which ertends
70 does not necessarily include in, so that
the circle may enlarge until it reaches the
objects that limit it, and yet not take
them in. But the plain and obvious sense
and meaning of the word shall in this SEN
tence, is in the future sense, and has Moth
ing imperative in it.. The language of the
trainers Of the Constitution is, 1--WE are
about forming general government
whe n that government is formed, itspowers
shall EXTEND" &c. ], therefore, see nothing
imperative in this clause, and certainly it
would have been very unnecessary to use
the word in that sense. For as there was
no controlling power constituted, it would
only, if used in an imperative sense, have
imposed moral obligation TO act. But
the same result arises from using il in
future sense, and the constitution eve