Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-08-07
OOh Outcictl ScFNdut,
A DISSENTING FARMER.
A QUESTION FOR THE LAwYsRs.

FOX THE LAWYERS.
The case of Colens as. Virginia has Civ
en- rise to many points, both Of law and con
stitution and among others, TO the question
whether the Borough Court of Norfolk was
the highest state tribunal, which could take
jurisdiction of the case. The distinguished
Nos. of Agernon Sidney have asserted that
the Borough Court was not the highest Court
Upon the strength of the opinion of two
Judges of the General Court, the same idea
was also thrown out i'm another shape in this
paper.
Algernon Sidney has been answered at
considerable length by " A Federalist of178s"
In the New York American from his Sd No.
we extract the follow passage:
Without wasting his singular reason
ing respecting the word protection, or his still more
Singular conclusion drawn from that reasoning shall
proceed to his assertion that the prosecution of the
Co''monredlh Of Vrgina against CoIe,,s might have
been carried To higher in that State than the
one IN which u orisnated Not processing to under
stand the peculiar Judicial system of Virginia., shall
moi enter any controversy with this writer respect
ing the exposition of their statutes nor should | no.
ice tins assertion at all. but for the mvidious object
WIN which 1t was made. For this reason ONLY
shall vcnlre remark that III the case of Beiinoer
against The CO'Tmoplreiitt, reported in Cairs Rep
words not very unlike those contained in the ratic:-
tar statute on wiiich Agernon Sidney has pronounced
50 cohhlenty, were construed b. the Court OF Appeals
oil that State not Ia confer appellate Jurisdiction anil
Inc Judges express themselves in language strongly
applicable 10 the of Vi-ginia vs. Coiens-I am
also informed by some gentlemen of the bar in whose
information place great confidence, that 40 case
Whatever has occurred in which this Jurisdiction hes
been exercised that there is No instance in virginia
SINCE the case cited from Calls Reports OF an appeal
from the Judgment OF rendered in any criminal
prosecution whatever. This fact goes far TO sho,y the
UNIVERSAL understanding the subject, and there are
many circumstances attending the case which adj to
its influence
Cohens, the defendant nravn1 an o,,ro,I f.o,,, ,,
Judgment against him, which the Borough Court of
Norfolk refused TO allow upon the ground expressly
teu ON the record that, of this sort are moi
wealth. - ~
The attention bestowed by the Legislature of Virgi-
ma upon tins case and upon the writ of error issued
10 remove II TO the Supreme Court OF the United
states, is well known throughout the whole country
L ne report OF the committee whom the subject was
feierrcd-he amendments offered to that repou-the
resolutions ultimately adopted-have all long been he
lore Inc public, In no of these papers was the
iuea suggested that the writ of error was premature
ana that The cause ought have been carried TO n
hlSher state tribunal before it brought TO the SUI
preme Court of the United States Ii, debate so
Tar al least us the debates have been published
was never suggested. | presume the legislature of
virginia, like that of every other State abounds with
lawyer'' whose practice would necessarily lead to
an intimate acquaintance with tins subeci Yct in
scraping together all sorts of inconrrous matter 10
Cast Quinn on this proceeding, the idea that the iuda
heh' had not been given by court of the last resort
ncNeT entered into any of the wise heads who had I'M
uc' |ihei 10 examine this subject. Could il even be
supposed that this material circumstance had csca,,cd
the Optics keen" of the gentlemen of the Yirgini1
par, Their Court of Appeals is known To have been in
:; T at TIC same time with the Legislature Far he
~ i ron me to msnlatc that these members would
s"u9 the pure ermlnc of which Aleernon Sidney
uks so much, by taking the lead or minclng in the
questions which agitae and inhaIne mere party poll
ui:'is. Without derogating from the calm and mild
uSiity, which is, doubt not the attribute Of that
sh trbuna 1t must be supposed that in the frequent
.crsatIonai discussions produced by the occasion
n'U luea mat the case was cognizabG in a higher
o!'rt would have been minated had it been enter
u1ned Had IL been minated, il must have reach
GU Ihe ears oil the legislature and had it reached
their ears, 1t would have been urged by the coun-
sci otVrgina at the bar of the Supreme Cnurt ~.
jurisdiction yet this ground of objections which If
well founded, would have been fatal, was neither
suggested by Virginia nor by her counsel
When these Gil cumsiances come TO br con,i,lercd
the decision OF Algernon Sidney, however confidently
and peremptorily pronounced, may well bc toubted-
but he tins as II may, however this question NAV be
settled hereafter, the mind OF that must be of
ordinary structure, who, ia such case can permit
himself TO say, that the Supreme Court considered the
Court for the Borough of Norfolk az the highest tribunal
OF the State in which the was cognixibc not
because such had been the decision of the State Cour
itself not because such appeared To be the opinion of
virginia and her counsel but for the purposc of civ
ing themselves jurisdiction who could permi, him
sell to suggest that this "a cigncd who could
the assertion, that practice HAT kind is not without
example IN that high Court who could add that
such practice may be also very convenient TO the
Supreme Court, IN ui lherng its favourc object fex-
pounding the constitutions III the gross, and settling
by anticipation, the real causes which may come be.
lore IT. The fitness of such mind for the discussion
OF great constitutional que ton, or the candour and
fairness oil the criticism IL has dictated uuou tle
decision OF that Question 10y the Competent tribunal
requires no comment
We shall leave it to gentleman learned in
the love of the law, to investigate this question
to one of these, we are indebted for the
following cOmmuniCaiion-We shall merely
remark, that the objection did not, as the
Federalst" supposes, escape the notice of the
Legislature of Virginia or her Counsel-but
they wished 60 take the bull at once by the
horns.-They were determined at once 60
meet the question as to the power of the court,
and not to skrmsh on any subordinate point.
They contested the jurisdiction of the Cour;
OF broad grounds-and therefore they avoided
raising this point.-We know that this point
was made as late as October last lit was made at
Norfolk.-lt was made here during the last
wlhter-and We are perfectly well informed
that the Counsel for the Commonwealth at
the bar of the Supreme Cour; were fully inn
pressed with the strength Of the point, but
waived II from determination TO meet the
question on the broad ground Of jurisdiction r.
cases where state was a party. TO have
made that point, indeed, would have been 10
have indirectly admitted the constitutional ia
usdlctlon of the court the very principle
which they n1aani 10 oonicst.--NYe WH
remark too, eH Pdssaal, tha; bosit!os other acri
monlOus and Just reflections made bv %" the