Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-06-08

too well foresaw, thai this Z" defensive ar
mour" would be completely taken from ms
and the state judiciaries completely annihi
lated. The venerable G.. Mason said u) tina
there Were many gentlemen in the United
States, who thought it best, to have ON.
great consolidated government, and that thi.
was TO be IMPERcEPTIBLY effected, by means
OF the federal Judiciary.
Against these great and yirttious characters,
the supreme cOIrt,-withOut deignng to AL
vert to them lis pleased to array the testi-
mony of Mr.. Hamilton. This witness stands
condemned, where the rights of the states
are concerned, by his well known preference
OF a consolidated government, and by his
having been in eager pursuit(v) ofthc ratifca-
ton OF the constitution, when he wrote his
essays. They were written, as it were, i'm
the heat of the controversy, and has treatise
IS not therefore TO be considered as calm
and temperate construction of the constitu-
tiOn.-The court is fond of coupling the
name OF Mr.. Madison, with that of this gen.
tleman, rs the reputed authors of that work,
The Fedcralist: but it is UNREASONABLE,
that Mr.. Hamilton wrote, exclusively, the
sections i'll relation to the judicial power
The passage quoted from that book by the
court, to shew the existence of the right of
appeal i'll this case, is Inconsistent with the
opinions of Mr.. Madison, as stated to have
been given, in the Virginia Convention and,
most probably, the latter gentleman, from his
distant residence, had not seen them, until
they were published. The authority of this
passage, is also much weakened, by another
from the same gentleman, which unquestiOn-
ably proves too nii<Ch(t0). 1t shows, that an
appeal will lie from the highest state courts, to
the subordinate federal tribunals! or to
the district courts of the Union'l This idea
carries with it, preference for the federal
tribunals, so marked and so unreasonable,
and suspicion of the state courts, so dcroga-
tory, and un)ustifable, as TO weaken entirely
the authority of the writer. | have, myseA,
often referred to the Essays in this work, and
found great support to my opinions, there
from but we ought not to adopt therelrom
ALL its ideas, however absurd, repugnant or
unreasonable, without the jurisdiction
now claimed, it is alledged, that danger will
ensue to the constitutional rights of the gem
eral government, let us not forget, that there
Is another party To the compact. That party
IS the state governments, who ought not to
be deprived Of" their only defensive armour.
AS Tor the contemporaneOus construction
of the constitution, by the congress who
passed the Judicial act of 1893, and relied
upon, also, by the court, there are many cir
cumstances combining to weaken its autho-
rity. One alone is conclusive. That act
was passed in great haste, by congress, and
amidst a vast mass, and pressure of other
business. 1t had not time enough, therefore,
to devote to every particular topic. The
authority of that congress, has also been rep-
rotated, by the Judgment of the supreme
court, itself, on another point, in the case of
ll.h
decided, in that case, that the act had errone-
ously given the power of Issuing manda-
mus, to the supreme court. Ii was so decid-
ed, although none who read that decision,
can for moment doubt, that it would have
been very grateful, to the court, TO have sis-
tanned its jurisdiction.
The supreme court has, also, much exulted,
that its own uniform decisions, in favour of
Its own jurisdiction, on the point of sustaining
an appeal from state court, have been as
sented to, by'' statesmen and legislators" of
our country, and with a single exception"
by the courts of" every' state, in the Union,
whose judgments have been revised.-It has
not yet been shewn, how many ofthc states
have had their judgments so revised. AS
for the " statesmen, suppose that Mr.. Ha-
milton is chiefly referred to, by the court.
leave him upon what has been already said,
and only adding, that he has been greatly
outweighed, on this point, by the great and
venerable characters, whose opinions have
been quoted. As for the Legislators" re-
ferred to by the court, none are particulariz-
ed, but those of the congress of 1889, and
their authority has been condemned by the
supreme court itself, as have already stated
As for the judges, in general, before whom
this matter may have come, IL is well known,
how prone all men are, to bend the knee, to
superior power. The courts of small states
cannot be well expected, to array themselves,
almost under any circumstances, against the
supreme court of the United States and, as
for the larger states, it is great undertaking
for even their courts. Perhaps, too, the cases
have not generally occurred, in the state
courts. Five and twenty years had ensued
the adoption Of the constitution, before this
question presented itself in the supreme court
of Virginia. Prior TO that time, that court
could only have come at the question, by a
.feigned case, as was done, las judge Johnson
informs us,) by the supreme court of the Uni
ted States, in the famous Yazoo cause
brought before 1.-THE day of retributon
may yet, however, come round, and the
rights of the states, involved in those of their
courts, be yet resumed. Unless it be so, we
may bid a final adieu to the fond idea of
federal government. As for the " single ex-
ception" alluded to by the supreme court, it
was rendered upon great consideration by
the unanimous opinion of the court ofappeais
OF Virginia. The motives of the court have,
certainly, never been questioned. The de-
cision, itself, has met the decided appreciation
of the coordinate departments, in that com
mOnwealth. 1t is also believed to be in ac-
cOFdance with the general opinion Of at least
the Virginian people.-The arguments used
by the court, arereported in Munf pa l.,
and, it is believed, cannot be answered.
They certainly HAVE NOT been answered in
the case in Wheaton, referred to by the SUI