Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-03-03

,ug'ntd, ofJore fhe supreme Court of the
United States in the Lottery case, u. /. and
~. 4. Cohen against the Commonwealth
81 Virginia. ora a writ Of error.
MIR SMYrH SAID he would support the
mntion Ri dismiss the writ of error grant,
ed III TINS case. for two causes I. Because
Tue constitution gives no jurisdiction TO
the court III tue case. .. Brrausc the ia
dicial act gives no jurisdictions TO the
court IN tins case.
1 consider IL, said he, as question un-
decided, whether the appellate jurisdic-
ton OF this court, as decla,ed by the con.
stiiution, does or does not extend 10 this
case. Ut 1t VAS in all respects similar 10
the case OF Hunter and Martin, adjudged
IN this court, (a) l should coniend that
The constitutional question OF jurisdiction
should n0i be regarded as settled. In that
case, the counsel conceded the constitu..
tienaI question A; and no argument has
been offered TO this court in support of
The Jurlstiiciiou.o i the slate juiic iary.
One OF the honorable judges 90 of this
court SAID, IN thai case when speaking
OF ihe claim ut power in This court 60 ex.
ercise appellate jurisdiction over the stale
tribunals, this IL m0meniOus question.
ANA one on which shall reserve myself
nncomm'ted, for each particular case.
that IN several cases, which have been
formerly adiudged in this court, the same
point was argued by counsel, and express.
~ ovcrruled." The case no. before The
court IL very different from that of Mar
TN against Hunter This is writ OF err
ror TO revise judgment given i'm crimi.
! nal prosecution, and IN a case wherein
state vas party. | shall, however. dis.
cuss the question decided i'm the case uf
iunier aud Martin, uuIess the court
shouid forbid me OH The ground that the
question is finally settled
lhe government OF ibe United States
being one OF enumerated powers,ii Is no,
sufficient Justification Of The authority
| Claimed, 10 say that there il nothing IN
me CONSTITUTION That prohibits the eoeral
judiciary To take cognziamce, by way OF
appeal, ct eases decided M The state
courts. All the powers mol granted are
re'aihed by The states judicial power IS
granted but IL Is federal judicial power
'hal ~ granted, anu NO, state Judicial pow
en- h's sraut neither iaipairs The au-
| ,horiiy OF The state courts IN suns remain.
ing within their Jurisdiciinu, nor eakes
mem 'nferior couiis of the United States.
The government at lie United States
operates directly upon The people, aud
nolaf all upon HE stale governments. or
Inc several branches thereof. The ale
governments are mol subject 10 this go
vefnnient. HE people are SUBJECT TO
D"tH governments. This government is
III no respect federal! IN lis operation, al.
'"o"g'' u Is, ~ some respects, federal in
us "ioan'Zalion. Power has, indeed, been
,eSeu' ny 'he constitution, III ;he state
legislatures. 10 pass certain laws uecessa
~ 10 oigdnlze aud continue The existence
OF NE general government, and this pow
er Consies- may IN pari assume They
may prescribe The time, place and manner,
oil nol''iug elections OF Representatives; The
'iihe aud manner OF choosing senators bs
'he State j. glsiature (; anei The iiino o,
choosing electors OF a President THIS
power Is expressly given by the constiu-
'ion IL was necessary Congress should
possess II, for sell preservation amt,
even III these cases, they have no power
10 prescribe to'Ihe Stale legislature a le.
gisiaiive act. This government camno,
ptescrbe an executive act 10 the exrcu-
tive 81 state, legislative aci 10 The L.
gislalule Of stale, or (as / conIen,i) a
Judicial act 10 The Judiciary 90 siair.
II the constitutions does not confer on
Inc judiciary OF The United States tue az
peiate jurisdiction Claimed, IL is moi
enough that the aci OF Congress ma,
purpoii to confer il. The iraniers of The
judicia! act manifested disirusi of their
auih"rliy ihey Sreu 10 have ioreseeu
mat Tie siaie courts would refuse to give
judgment according 10 the Opinions oi The
supreme court. the case decided i'm ,he
stale court vas not ID case III law arislp
under The laws ot The United States II
"aS prosecution under Law Of tie
Stale ....Shouid II mandate issue la tins
oaSr, a"d obedi nee he refused. this
court VII give judgment on ID pfosecu-
ION Tor violating sta,e laws. III
the case decided IN The stale courf be
f'Sarneu. az case IN which d state was
parry, Tie supreme couii hos, Uy Tie
constitution, original, and moi appellate
Jurisdiction ihe appellate jurisdiction
al The supreme cOuri Is only conferred in
cases ether than those whereof the SUI.
pIeme court has original jurisdi, ton.
Who las original jurisdiction OF those
other cdsss The Inferior federal coults.
Some OF those other cases are those of
admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction. OF
which certainly II was not intended il,a,
the original jurisdiction should be in The
state courts
1t this wit OF error be considered to be a
sun III law tdbu contend that ii ISL this court
nave 10 jurisdiction for il Is prosecuted a.
sainst state and, by tbr Hin amendment 10 |
the constiution,no suit ~ law eau be pIosecn-
ted by foreigners or citizens of another state
against one OF the United States. Tue amend. |
ment pi ohibits such suits commenced or D,o.
secuted against state. This seems expressly
to extend 10 this writ OF error, which, altnonph
not snli ~ law commenced against ia state,
Is SUIT IN law prosecuted against state
lhlS amendment, denying 10 foreigners aud |
citizens OF other siates the right to prosecute |
a suit against slate, and being sIe ut as to ii. |
tizeuS of the same state, affords "a proof thai |
tile federal courts never had jurisdiction OF a |
suit between citizen and The s, ale whereof he
is "a citizen Tor II cannot be presumed THAT |
a fIght 10 prosecute suit against a state /
AInull he q frntln