Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-01-23

tina. thai ,, court consider wrong drs there 40
prt.ly controlled The legislature levy a as-Ih, fed, raj
court are called upon 2ul upon motion, aiugr II to lie
gari the collector nv wrurg door ,rn ti,iu him iron
collecting it. thr is collected paid into the state
the tax ,uiiona-,s collection trs,psw: the
state treasurer baiIr for the claimant, and decree
t,i'ion OF the The Legislature Of the
law for the puni,hmrnt OF crn,ts: individual
weed under rs Ons nnd imprisoned in the ps nena-
~ Pie complains that the law under which he is convicted,
rcpugnant tothe conutono of the o. $. lie calls upon
the federal Tor r,iss. The decide the law
DC uheoisn'o'l the conviction Illegal the keeper of the
peii,ntary ,s,assrr, order the prisoner to be
discharged In such proceeding they keep the
srtiy cut of and regar IL personal
They shut their the real of far
s,, the character of the whole transaction for
b,d the superstition that thu could have had amy agency
or conctrn ~ tn imprisonment In this the states
may be plac,i ut the t of the federal Judiciary, well
in its administration OF criminal justice, in its fiscal
| Germs"
| The committee aware of the doc trine,
| thar the federal courts are exclusively vested
| with jurisdiction TO declare, in the last resort
lie true Interpretations of the constitution OF
the United States. 10 This d. ct,ipe, in the la,i
| iude coDiendcd tor, they never can give their
assent.
| Every court of Justice where they have ju>
risdiction over The parties TO the sni,,
aud tile subject OF CONTROVERSY, are OF e.
| cesslty invested with power'to decide every
question upon which the rights OF the par.
| ties depend. Aud their decision is conclusive
| unless superior court be invested with ju-
4
powers of the federal aud of The state ludi-
ciary are precisely The same These powers
are not founded upon any express coustitu-
| tional provision but result from the very
| naiurs of written constitutions, and judicial
| dnty."
| =" In this case, then, the federal courts can.
not now pronounce an effective judicial de-
| ci.iop. They cannot possess themS elves Of
| jurisdiction over the parties, upon whom any
decision they might make, could opsraie.....
Yet individuals may contrive some trnigncd
action, or make some fTeiyned issue and
l present 10 the federal cou,t for decision "A
ease. calling upon them, and thus empower.
Ing them To decide that upon "A particular
stale OF facts, the operation of a state law
would be er post JGcto within the meaning OF
the provision OF the constitution OF the IAi-
ted states. 4 decisun these obia ain ed vvouid
be euiitled 10 respect, a. tie opinion of emf
neut men, but never could be regarded as a
lJudiciai declaration of the law of the land.
BY an expires provision of the constitu
ton of the Unit States, a provision intro
dnced pu'pesely TO eject that object the
stale IN asy controversies they may have
with indy idnals, are placed beyond The Iu-
riSdiction of the federal courts. 1t would
seem iucnntrover,ihl", that the am endatory
article, placed the states. and the United
States IN relation la each her different from
that IN which they STOOD uuder the original
constitution. ID tferent in this, that ID all
cases, where the states could lot he called
To answer in the federal con- u.s. these counts
| tfh>tU 10 De n constitutional iiIlbnrdi in>
vesttghte ard determine their pHwcr aad AN
; liberty under the constitution of thu United
S,aies. The du " of The conrtS 10 declare the
law terminated with their authority TO exc
cute IL.
fhe committee conceive that such is the
true aud mat Su>h is the settled construction
OF the constitution settled by an authority
paramount TO ell; others, and from which
there can he no appeal tue authority of IN e
people themselves.
|
1.-THE resolutions of Kentucky aud Virpin.
l ia, aud of Mas ,dchusetis Rhode Island the
senate OF New York, New Hampshire aud
rmODt in really, aud iaP answer to these re-
plies, by the legislature OF Virginia, were a
direct and constitutional appeal In the states
Ana 10 the people, upon The great question
at issue. The appeal was decided by the
| presidential and Oiher eiectiOns OF 1900 The
states and the peOpi, recognized and aifirmc d
the doctrIue' OF Kentucky aud Virginia by
efeciin. d tai change III ihe administration
OF the federal government In the pardon
ot Calender, con1ICted under the sphltion
law, ahd IN the remittance OF his fine the
ne" administration uncQnyocdllN rcr0gnlzed
The decision aud the authority of the states
aud of he people. Tins has the question,
whether The federal courts are the sole ex-
; posItcts OF the constitution OF The Uuied
states IN tiir last resort, or whether the
states as LII all other ca,es of compact among
| parties having common Judge ha u.
AN eqnai iignt to Interpret that coustitu.
tIon tor themselves where their sove.
retgn rights are involved been decided a.
gaiust the professions OF the federal Iudyes
%, the people them selves, the true source
az all legitimate power.
| In the opinion OF the committee, the high
authority OF tfis precedent, well "a the
| e ear Iignt nf the csSf impose duty upou
the safe. from which IL cannot shrink without
dtShononr. So long one single Cons,iiu-
| lonai effort can he made to save them the
STATE ought not 10 surrender its rights 10 the
6ucIuaching pretensions OF the circuit court"
- II must he remsnb ered, that though the
the extIavagsn' and fraudulent specuIations
OF those entrusted with conduiiug the con.
| cernS OF the hank. ~ stood at the close of the
year 1918, upon the very brink Of deslIucton. Al
tbis ctitical jumcinre of its affairs, mauoeuvTe
81 cOHsuUmat .pulicy TO draw from the supreme court
Of the United States, decision, that the institution
itseif, cOnstiiutlnnay and that IL was ex
empI rem the taking paper of the states This deri.
si0H served prop SINKING credit and If IL iDHic
ed dangerous wound upon the authority OF the states
both with The bank. and with John James this might
ne hat a minor consideration. II Is tTniy alarming
Circumstance, fit lac in the power Of aspiring cor
| p0iatIon and unknown ami obscure nd,vidnai.
thus &" elicit opinions, compromising the inter
esta OF The states that compose The American Union
- The third proposition (of the conrf is.
" that power 10 CREATE, implies power 10
| preserve"
As app lcabIe to the government of the H.
| mon and the Incorporation of the bank OF
the United states, this proposition, in the
bro ,d ense ut Us pxpressiOu Is considered
| totally iuddmissible.
the commit ee have already attempted to
demonstrate. that Tie bauk OF the U"ited
| States, IS mers private corporation OF trade.
/ IHeIT charter COHferS UPON them geItheT pOlIt.
! i.al character, nor political pOwtr; Il gives
J them corporate capdctty, and nothing more.
! The provision that the back may esiab 81
branches ~ Tie STATES and territories. when
ttIFIy construed can ouiy be regarded as civ.
ing corporate .caI aciiy 10 do so aud this Is
TIE only provision Of The charter tiat by any
coloiabie int probation. ca0 be understood
To vest them viih SemblauCe OF pOlitiC al
| power
The legal faculty. and capacity conferred by
The charter, " cOHSiitn'iOudily created are
proseTved m exislence hl The very law ihat