Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-04-29


his authority To arrest and defain, is le-
gally derived from the United States for
IT, on his authority being siewn, il shall
be found 10 he unconstitutional and void,
the prisoner must be discharged. But in
questionable cases, where person was
IN the custody of legal officer of the u.
States, and there was doubt whether
the case was embraced by treaty or law,
according TO IFS true construction, or not
or whether the courts Of the United
States might or might not take cogni-
zancc OF The matter, with which the pris-
oner vas charged, and the like, should
deem II propcrfo leave the determination
OF such dubious poinss To the federal
courts-because, they are undoubteelly
the constitutional tribunals fer The deci-
sion OF all such questions, arising under
the constitution, laws, aud treaties Oft
nation ;nndin whose wisdom and integ-
ri,y, we are bound, Is public officers, BY
those principles ofconiiy which. come-in
ana ci The great ligatures that hold the
Stale governments together, to repose tie
most unlimited eonfidegue. until such
misplaced.
The greatquesfion, iiien. is-Cau Ger
s7tss coiit atic'.2ity i.:rst i.,e judicial oIf-
GERS ot slis Sta:e ts;th mn po,iion of he IN
'fieial PoceS Of the u. S:ffss, in cay c7ilsiaai
case l,hafccer!
In the consideration Of questions of this
nature, it is Of no consequence 10 deter
nine whence tie government of the u.
states sprang whether from the people,
or ihe states OF the union, or from both.
as the only principle necessary TO be
Dorne constantly III. mind, is that laid
down IN The tent! article OF The amend
mems; by which il is d, cared, that "ihe
powers not delegated 10 the Il. States bv
The constitution, nor prohibited by it 10
the states, are reserved IN The states res
pectiVeiv, nr 10 the people" The govern
meni OF the u. States, being Tins defined
TO he restrictive and limited one TO
prove, therefore, that it has jurisdiction in
any particular case, ii is requisite that an
express grant Of power should be shewn,
or else that the power claimed should be
shewn TO be essentially incident 10 one
expressl " given.
Keeping this leading feature of the CON
siltutlon ofthe union constantly in view,
SHAH trst clear away some questions
apparently OF similar nature, aud then
investigate the one before us singly AMI
>unassoclated with those of lis Kindred,
winch, when taken together, seemed 10
have accustomed much difficulty and Goa
fusion, as well as some degree Of alarm,
al INC probable consequences OF having
this whole family Of presumed rights
ana constructive powers hanishcd from
the constitution or the United States.
The first class Of cases which have
some analogy to that wundSrdiscussion
are those IN which the state courts claim
aconcurreat jurisdiction with The courts
ct he union. To this class may be as
siSpei ~ hose evil eases os which Tia.
stale tribunals mag fakc cog tfzanrs-, 'fsris,,
par,les concerned choose 10 resoSt 10
them and which cases are not, by the
constitution, exclusively vested in the tri
bunalsof the United STATES. Such, ii is
admitted, are cases of controversies be
tween citizens Of different states, between
citizens Of the same state, claiming lands
under grants of different states, and be-
tween citizens and foreigners. IN all ca
ses OF this kind, until legally removed
from before them, il is conceded that lie
state tribunals have complete jurisdiction
because, TO all such cases the jurisdic-
ton OF the state &C arts extended before
the adoption OF the federal constitution
and there is nothing in that instrument
which can well be construed 10 have OK
Guided them from the exercise of such au-
thority; and. therefore, tl;eif powers are
said 10 be so tar concurrent with the
courts Of The United States. Questions,
relative to "a concurency of jurisdiction,
always give rise TO al enquiry as 10 what
CO ses the Judicial power of the union
shall extend, and What is the nature Oftte
powers with which those tribunals are
clothed. But the question now before us
involves 10 such enquiries il Is whether
| or not Congress may autlorise the state
courts TO exercise q jurisdiction similar TO
| that Of the United States courts, and in
| the name OF the United States. a single
example will sufficiently illustrate this
| distinction, ~ regards criminal cases~--
| The act of Congress of the 2lst April,
| 1906, which provides for the punishment
Of counteTfeiting the current coin of the
| United States, in the 4ih section, TocOg-
nizes and preserves this concurreBcy of
| jurisdiction, by declaring, that nothing
| therein contained, shall be construed 10
| depriVe the coaris of the iudividnalataies
| o. jurisdiction, under the laws OF the sev
! eralsiaies, over offences made punishable
| by that act" In January, 1916, the court
| Of appeals Of s. Carolina decided, in the
case Of The State rs. Joseph Antonio,
| that the state judiciary was nOtdeprlved OF
a concurrent jurisdiction, to hear, Try,
| and condemn under tie sfate iaUS, lmalOng
the cOuntrrfeiiing the current com iei0-
nv bv any thing contained IN the con
| sfitution or the laws of the United State
because, before the establishment OF
the general government, they had Iuris.
dictiOa IN such cases, aud not being di-
| vested of such authority by any express Oh
M cessarily implied provision OF the con.