Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1816-02-01

ton From the circumstance OF the
Courts OF the States, having, in the course
of their ordinary jurisdiction, incidentally
acted upon the constitution, laws or treaties
of the u. Stases a circumstance which
would equally make the Supreme Court
of Calcutta, a part of the judicial system OF
the u. States, when enforcing the laws of
this Country in that. Bul this is not ali
II becomes nccessary, and by the like i'm
plIcation. Tor the Courts of the S,ates-e-
ven for the Supreme Appellate Courts OF
the States. to spread the facts upon the re-
cord, without which the Courts of the ".
States, cannot, act upon the subject. This
idea, though essential to the exercise of tie
appellate power, is utterly at war, both
with the character of Supreme State
Court, as such, and with the right of the
States to regulate the proceedings of their
own Courts. 1t was resolved by the Vir-
GINA Legislature, in acting upon the report
aforesaid. ~ that the appellate jurisdiction
given by the clause III question did not ex-
tend TO criminal cases, depending even in
the inferior federal courts, Notwithstanding
the generality Of the terms used, because
Jurytrial was secured in such cases, by the
constitution. and was not subject Of APP
peal. This argument holds much more
forcibly, in the case before us, both because
the terms used are fairly satisfied, by re-
ferring them only to the federal tribunals,
aud because they cannot reach the Courts
OF the States, but by passing into another
government, sinking the character of the
Supreme Courts Of the States, into mere
iuterior tribunals, and invading the hereto
fore exclusive right ct the States, to regu-
late the proceedings of their own Courts
Again, III order to authorize the re-exam-
nation of facts, in the Supreme Court, a
RI fittu
of appellate courts. it was found necessary
to provide e.rhrcsSiy for it, in the constitu-
ton. Had this not been done, that Court
would have been confined to the record,
as in other cases. This provision is, by "a
| nalogy, conclusive to shew, that the APP
| peals here Intended, are only those from
| the Federal Courts. Had it been intended
| to trench upun causes abiding in the State
Courts, also, the most express and explicit
| words would have been used, to effectuate
SO unusual and delicate power. AS such
| words are not used, it is fair presumption
| that this was nat intended.
| But, what is this implication, by which
this effect is to be produced ? BY which a
| power is to be taken from the State Gov
ernments, and vested in that of the Union,
F! and the Courts of the former taken into the
| service OF the latter! There is no iota of
| expression in the constitutions, which Ell
| ther takes it from the States, or gives it to
the U. States. If it be said, that the impl-
| cation arises from the nature Of the power,
| answer, that that power, when exercised
in State Court, is a part of the judicial
| power of the States, and not of that of the
| u. s. AS | have already endeavored to
shew. What, then, do the Gentlemen
| contend for. bat power neither expressly
| granted to the general government, nor ia
4 4 A. Il
the Judicial power CT the U. States p II
this mode of deducing power be adequate
to the purpose, it was very unnecessary,
| indeed, for the constitution, after having,
| in the eighth section of the first article,
thereof, expressly granted TO Congress,
certain important and necessary powers, to
! go on, in the tenth section, and EXPIRE ssly
| inhibit them to the States. If, in this in
stance, both grant of the powers to the
| y. States, and denial of them to the sew
| eral states, we're deemed necessary 20 car
| ry the powers to the general government,
| what re we to say of a case in which there
| is neither such grant, nor such denial, to
be found 10 the instrument fall this eau
ton was deemed necessary, through be-
coming respect for the rights of the States,
| and just objection to the implication oil
power, in regard to powers, Tthose of de-
ctaring war, Il granting letters of marque
| and reprisal. for example,l emphatically
belonging TO the government of the union,
and no how appertaining to those of the
States, is it not much more necessary, in
| relation to such as are no how essential to
the u. S. and exclusively belong to the Sc
| veral States, as forming part OF their jul
| dicial power' If the convention deemed it
necessary, to write with pen of steel, in
relation tothe stronger case just mention
| ed, is il to be believed they would have con
| veyed, in Whereabouts, the weaker now
er now in question
] have thus endeavored to sheH, by the
! preceding detail, that none of the clauses
OF the constitution, before mentioned, re-
| late to the state courts, or to the causes
| therein depending ; that the power now in
question, has not been expressly granted
to the general government, nor Inhibited to
| those of the states that it exists no where
| but in the general words Of the preamble to
| the constitution, and is not a necessary in
| cltlent to any power, which has been spe-
| cihcally granted. 1t iE not necessarily in
cident to the power of the appellate court
| OF one government, to correct the proceed
! ings of the courts Of another, though acting
| upon tie constitution or laws of the form-
| er.-I have also endeavored 70 shew, that
the pretence of a constructive power, arr
sing from the general words Of the pream-
bile to the constitution, is not only fatal to
the principle, that the government of the
United States is one of limited and granted
l.