Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-06-20
'' Constitutional Exposition"

PT"". i"WS on the t,utcd States ?" The
National inlel!igencer refers TO the re
cent oecision OF Judges Bland and Han
son, OF Maryland, IN the case of Alme;da.
wherein they deny the power of the Uni
ted States I'D authorize and require st,te
judicial tribunals, superior or inferior 70
take cogniz3nce, either originally or o.
vcniMally, of offences against The laws of
the United States" and, in allusion tn
tins decision, calls it "the MARYLAND
construction" of the Constitution. But.
ruth. 1t might as weN have been called
me : Virginia construction" because il
M" Deen previously twice decided i'm the
General Court, our highest criminal trib
uAai' once IN IFS November term for 1913.
IN the case of John Feely, who was char,
geu with misdemeanor in robbiuu The
mail, and again in IFS November term of
1910 IN The case of Rose, Il retail dealer in
goods, VINO was sued for the penalties pre-
scrioed by the act of Congress. for seII;ny
sp'r'iuouS liquors without licepse-So
mat Il may be asserted with still more
conn ience IN Virginia, than i'm MARYLAND.
."a' ne otate Courts will not enforce the
pena' laws OF the Congress of the United
:. The National Intelligencer cites with
pleasure the deliberate opiuion and de-
Gis'on or Judge Cheves (nomen clayu,,.
uirecuy me reverse of that before refer
'eu IN me case of Andrew Rhodes. who
was Drought before him ." at chambers,
d"m, and the ofiicerin whose custody he
was, exhibited as the authority bv which
he detained him, &c warrant of commit.
lnenl under the hand and seal of Johu RI
mMitcneii, Justice of the peace (of South
Sdid.ha,) on Charge that the prisoner
i'du forged or counierfeited number of
projections Tor American seamen." The
eases hei'her OF AImeida or of Rhodes
are rs strong as those of Feelv or Rose
because Judge Cheves attempts TO show
maj the act of the magistrate I'm commit
ting the offender Rhodes, is ni,isiey;al
ACT, and that of course &c the ground on
which the counsel for the prisoner has
put thus argument, which is the same re-
iied upon in the case of Almeida, entirely
rails whereas, in the Virginia cases. il
was not IN the mere niniste,iar' charac-
Ter OF consefvators of the peace" that
our courts had TO act. but really i'm the
exercise of judicial act" as Judges cal
led upon TO try and enforce tile penalties
of the law.
What decision Judge Cheves would
pronounce in the latter case, is not posi-
livery declared IN the course of this de-
cision ; that not being the question before
him.
me only question that remains (says he } is,
whetper the Legislature of the United States
mas right bya statute, forbidden by no nro
vision OF the Constitution of the United States
10 give limited authority TO conserve the
peace 10 one or more OF the citizens and sub
Jects oil tie said United States who happen
| AZ the same time TO be conservators of the
| peace OF the state9 If not forbidden nv the
constitution OF the United States, what other
power can forbid it? That constitnt;oU -
! press!y forbids all it does nor authorize If nn+
| SO forbidden, the statute is the supreme law
| OF the ianu. All the minor arguments of ex-
! pcdiency, such as blending Jurisdictions. NO
s.tct or STARE dntIes, want responsibility and
| otners or inc same description, are of little
weight IN themselves, and are not for judicial.
| Dhs iesis'ative consideration.
But though not distinctly nor directly
pronounced, we should be at no loss from
me tone OF the opinion, and manv indi-
rect expressions which lie drops. TO infer
that he would have taken the affirmative
slde OF the question; to wit: that Ca
State Court can, Constitntionallv. enforce
The penal laws of the United States. -
| Now, thOuglfwe have the highest respect
FOR Judge Cheves vet we cannot buf say
lhaf there are the most serious. and we
think, conclusive reasons to doubt the
correctness of such an opinion: some Of
winch are stated IN the following extract
from an exposition of the case of Rose.
decided III the General Court in 1915:
cannot discern any such power con-
Ierred ON the state courts by the consti-
luton: On The contrary, the judicial
power OF the United States is vested in
one supreme court, ana in such inferisr
courts as Congress NAV from time to fine
ordain and establish Can il possibIv
be said that the Congress have ordained
and established the state courts 1Tbe
act OF comforting additional power ON
them, or OF INCREASING their business
does not o'dain and establish them. They
are ordained and established bv the state
legislatures under the authority of the
STATE constitution, and are entirely indie
pendent OF Congress. The state courts
hold their commissions and authority
entirely from tlie state governments. and
10 tHelr own states are exclusively resnon-
sslble. 1t state Judge were TO mjsbehave
IN his office, even in the exercise of now
ers conferred on him by Conoress he
could not be impeached by the House of
Representatives of the u. 6. before anv
tribunal whatever, nor could he be tried
or removed from Office bv the Senate of
the u. S.-On what possible ground
then, can Vt he said that a state court il
ordained and established by Compress.
when 1t IS neither commissioned. appoint,
eel or organized by Congress. and Is not
responsible 10 the United States for
any Of its acts, hewever wicked lhey NAV
bel may
" The Judges oflhe supreme and in
terlor courts shall hold their Offices du-
ring good behavior The tenure of
the offices of the state Judges is regulated
by the Constitution and laws of The seve-
raj states. la Virginia, the iudres hold
during good behavior, but in some other
states they donot hold their Offices by