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


ton Of the cases originated before it,
and this is rs meaning IN relation 70
the concurrent jurisdiction of the Fed
cral Courts. Casys brou Int tcfire them,
arc never removed into the State
Courts. Cases decided by them, are
iin4liy decided. But, II seems thlt Il
little more is meant. In relation 10 the
ieeis'ra, courts, it furIher means, that they
may take cogszanc. of causes, removed
finm L state tribunal. before tri Il, or II wise
them afterwards BY appeal. Is it Il 1t, III 1re-
nver. apparent, th;-t tue Same rensCn,ag,
which lust hes thu extension Of the jIGiCial
pawer ofthe y. States, to tbs Sc cases, in
this way, would Justify lis extension in "a
ny way, and give to Congress power TO
transfer by law, every case of federal cos
nizance, brought before a state tribunal,
withiu the pale OF the federal jurisdiction
According u the doctrine advanced by
Mr.. Writ, as to the discretion OF Congress
IN selecting thS mode of offectiug an OBJ
jet, such would Inevitably he tie result.
But, let US examine this point riore mi
nutely. The judicial power of the Uri-
{ d states sha extend" &C.. Now, admit
thai Congress hive q right, under the Sth
section, 70 maze law for the purpose OF
carrying into eifcct the Judicial power of
the United States. Let them have this
power, ana to whit does 1t amount The
judicial power OF The Uni,el States, is by
the constitution, concurrent with that of
the States, an So 1t must remain. Bur, this
Argument gees to shrw, th-t il may be ex-
elusive and supr. me
= further remark on this point is sub
mitted. The argument here controverted,
sup2cses that Congress have right TO eX-
tend the judicial v >wer OF the United STATES
10 all cases IL the enumerated classes, tho
depending before, or decided by q state
tribunal Thus, these words, " the Judi
cial power of the u. States shall c-rtend."
&c. mean that Congress shall have power
to pass laws fir tn e'removal into the trbu-
mails of the United States, causes depend
ing b fore q state tribunal, and 10 give to
the former an appellate jurisdiction over
the latter That a power 50 delicate
in its character, and so important i'll
its effect. should have been Intended to
be conveyed in this covered, subterraneous
way, it is impossible to believe.
IL may also, with proDriety, be said that
the Constitution Of the United States, when
speaking of the Gas s, to which the Judi
oial power shall extend, must be Consider
cd as referring 20 existing cases. Now,
cases decided cannot be regarded as eXis-
ting cases. The original case is merged
in the decision. A bond, on which iudg-
uent IS obtained, is swallowed up by the
Judgment.
1t is, however, unnecessary to press this
Point more. Accordingto my view Of the
subject, every argument founded on the
clause of the constitution now reviewed, is
irrevelant. The question before this court
is, whether the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States. has Appellate power over this
coart, the Supreme Court of State Now
this question is decided by a different clause
of the Constitution, by which the original
Us well as Appellate jurisdiction of the Su-
preme Court is completely defined, and
If, from a fair expos ton, it appears that
the Supreme Court has not constitutionaly
Appellate Jurisdiction over the state q. q
bunais, g.. q manifesteJr waste OF time to
engage ia regular refutation of arguments,
Introduced to prove that Congress viii be-
stow it.
This brings US to the Cd ground taken by
The Counsel, for the Appellee. They say
that the 81 paragraph, of the Cd sec. art.
8, of the constitution OF the United States
in these words: " In al! cases affecting am
bassadors, public ministers and con-
snls, and those in which state shall be
p rty, the supreme court, shall have ORR
ginal jurisdiction. in all the other cases,
before mentioned, the supreme court shall
have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law
& fact, with such exceptions, & under such
Tegui atoms, as the Congress shall make"
gives TO the Supreme Court of the u. S.
~ appellate jurisdiction over the tribunals
of state, as well rs over the inferior tri-
bunals of the United Ststes.
Various considerations present them
selves at once, in opposition to this doc
inc. They snail b. briefly stated.
1. The object of the Constitution, in this
clause, is obviously, to designate the cases
in which and not the courts over which
the Supreme Court shall have appellate
Jurisdiction. There is not word said .
bout courts.
O. The over now claimed is of a cha
racter both delicate and peculiar the first,
because itis to be exercised by a depart
Inent Of one government over department
OF another and peculiar, because, as was
before remarked, it introduces an anoma-
ly into our system, which it was very easy
to avoid. Now, is it to be believed, that
p ,wer of tn s KIND, treaty intended TO b..
given, would have been LETT to depend OIL
co lecture or inference This cannot be BE-
lievc1 OF the contrary, the evidence to be
cclicctcl from the constitution itself proves,
tlat il this power had been in,eRdcd to be
coat, rred Oh the Supreme Court of the u.
States. the terms used would have distinct
~ and expressly referred to It, The Ian
giags would have been rs clear as that Of
the following sentence " In all the other
cases before mentioned, whether decided
by an inferior tt bunal Of the IT. States, or
by any Court Of a State, the Supreme