Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-09-04

N'' ti'faN s1Asistai nave lllteNitVO'i ttludi
10 mat of the L. STA position, by the bye.
which we have shown, was never maintained
by this paper. lit goes on 10 say +" The doe
trine now maintained by the Enquirer we ven
turc Ia assert Is not the doctrine of the cois,i-
tuition, and how do we prove it? b. refer
ring TO what: why, TO the 25th section of
the Judiciary act ofl739. Instead of meeting
the general question OF Suprem1cy in cases
OF collision; instead OF saying whether Madi-
son, and Jefferson, and the Republican party
OF '98, had or had not held the doctrine which
we maintain ;and therefore, whether the silly
nlcknames of Eetc PARTY, nep LIGHTS, sc. sc.
could he fairly used against us. or not the In
tcl!lgcncer proceeds to discuss the insulated
proposition about the constitutionali;y of the
18th section of the act of go.
We were utterly at a loss TO know whether
the inieiligcncor meant 10 give this single case
as an Illustration o. the general doctrine of SUI
premacv, and to urge, because the ST.
preme court had right To revise the state
courts, that therefore, in all cases. where that
court did decide, its decisions were conclusive
upon the states /: and still further, that i'm all
cases of collision, it was the right of the setie-
raj government, through the supreme court
" to decide ultimately what belongs TO itself.
or to ITS co-parcenor in government" We
could not but suspect, however, from IFS stu
died silence, as to the general proposition, that
1t did dissent from the doctrine of '98, bat was
unwilling TO avow tive determined. in this
state OF things, to meet the view which was
taken by the Inteliigenccr of the act Of $50
to prove that the constitutional point involved
in its 2Jth section had not been Serir,im dis-
cussed in the Congress of $50. and therefore
could not be said to be deliberately decided to
prove that if it had been discussed, the con
stitutional objections which might have pre-
scented themselves, might perhaps have pre-
vented the adoption OF that section and that
certainly the Congress of $50 could not be
considered as the oracular expositors of the
constitution, because one of the provisions of
the Judicial act itself had since been pronounce
ed by the supreme court to be contrary to the
constitution.-We determined, in the next
place, TO so back TO the subject at issue viz.
the broad question of supremacy in cases of
collision and to shew from incontcstible au-
thorities flor the question between us had rather
resolveditscf into one of fact than of princivic,)
that we were not nee lights that we did not
hold forth Mr.. J. as the head of IA ne,c pariy;
but that it was the lntelligencer itself, which
seemed TO forget the principles of '98.
Its reply, in more than two columns, is now
before us-nothing definite, nothing satisidcto-
ry. The precise proposition not stated, or
discussed-not one syllable bestowed upon
the authorities of Madson. or Jefferson, on the
republican doctrines of '93.-ln lieu of these,
the "astute" politician again chatters about
the act Of'39-and skirmishes through other
propositions which are utterly vague ard ire
levant. Sometimes he seems TO glance at the
doctrine we had discussed, hut the next mo-
mcnt iiias oil as if startled by the sound HIM
self had made" Can the supreme court at
flmdtely decide. or not, in cases of collision
Are its decisions in all such cases conclusive
w a cnpi,asG nltrcpI1-oc NIT I,c.
derstand the lntclgencer-so confused are
its statements, and as far as we can guess
them, SO contradictory at different times.
Row, 1T adopts the sentiment, that the {" dcci-
sIons OF the supreme court are declarations of
pdramounttaic." In another paperasking, "whcn
the states have undertaken whether iudcIalIv
or lcgisIatively, to cOnstrue the Constitution
of the U. 5. differently from the supreme iu-
dicial tribunal, in what light have the Repub-
licans of the Union hitherto regarded the pro-
cecdng?"-And now in the last articlc* before
us, admitting, that in all cases the federal
court is not supreme" (what not where ii
chooses to decide and does decide ?(-that
it " contends only for the Just authority of the
court, as defined by the constitution and the
laws" &c.-That " it feels a deep anxiety, that
the lawful authority of the highest Judicial tri-
bnnal flor adjudging federal questions) be sus-
| tanned throughout if this jurisdiction be
pushed so far in any case as TO be " built upon
power which is not given," and to " trench
upon the rights of the States" its DEGREES are
not " to be held conclusive upon the states"
| We'll, truly, this last concession seems to be
| little softening down of the hgh-toned, para
mount doctrines previously held by the Intel
| llSencer: but still the great point Mt issue is
not met with any thing like precision. In ca
ses of collision is the supreme court ultimate
ly to decide the rights belonging to the fcde-
raj government, or TO its co-parcenor Does
the even embrace this question in the " leading
opinions which in the close of this article, it
puts forth" in succinct and fit hopes, intclliSi
| bic form" for the purpose of enabling us {" TO
comprehend(ts) meaning ?''-What are they
{" We deem the judiciary act 1889, to be HE main
pillar of the supersiructurc of law which was reared
and character Of that organic law"
" We would have the Decisions Of the Supreme
Court always discussed and examined with the utmost
freedom by the Press and the People. That tribunal
should be confined most rcidly within its proper
sphcre-lt should stand or fall by the Justice and con-
sttu,ionality of lis DEGREES, ascertaned in the mode
pointed out by the constitution"
" We would preserve, nnnipared, the rouer of
his trlbuna and should regard the smallest dminu
ton of that power as an idle experiment and DANCE
totis innovation"
Z" But have no objection to increase the respop-
Si6ilHy OF tho Court IL, after due delibcration, the
present responsibility should be deemed inadequate to
ensure the administration of justice and strict Cbser
vance ofthe!constitution and the laws"
{" Thus far would we go, because we think there is
wisdom in the prudcutiamaxm of Syrus that " he is
most free from danger, who, when safe, is Oh his
guard
Does this touch the issue Far from it. The
press and the people may discuss and examine,
but who is to decide7 May the states or shall
the supreme court alone decide ?
The Intelligencer, however, shall not escape
us. We ask him to answer categoricaIly, one
way or other, the following questions: