Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-06-12

cur.
The court next attempt to fortify their
construction by appealing to that clause
which mentions the states by name : and
they infer from this circumstance, that the
court possess jurisdiction over the states, in
cases where they are not named. There ne
YER was holder attempt to wrcst weapons
from an adversary, and 10 use them against
himself But the attempt has only the merit
ofbodness, aud their total failure should
teach them that there are sorr;.- liuiits to the
credulity of the public. According TO what
system of logic do the court iufer from the
particular specification of powers, that a gre
neral power is granted, which must swallow
up the particular specification 1.-THE court
have jurisdiction over states in certain emu
merated cases, have they therefore jurisdic
ton In cases notenumerated l AM aslam-
ed To be obliged to ask such questions {; and
doubly ashamed that such arguments proceed
from the supreme court ofour country. But
the court seem to suppose that if any case
can be shewn where they have jurisdic-
ton over states, all the magic Of state soye-
reignty is dispecd, and the states are strip
ped of that armour which can alone guard
them against federal inroads. Let them
once gain the desired spot of Archimedes,
and they will sway the states at pleasure.
1t may be asked, however, how it happens
that the federal government should have jul
risdiction over the states, IN any case, if the
constitution so tender of state sovereignty?
The answer to this question will be furnish
ed by an attentive consideration of the Judi
cial article, together with the 18th amend
ment. 1t will appear from those authorities
that state cannot no,o be sued in any case
by any iadiridi,at whatever, whether he be
citizen of another state, or the citizen or
subject of any foreign state. The only cases
in which state is still suable, are those in
which another state or dny foreign state MAY
be plaintiffs. The broad line of discrimina-
ton between these two classes of cases must
be perceptiblc to the dullest vision. There
are two palpable distinctions. AS to the
dignity of the parties. An individual, to
whatever nation he may belong, cannot rank
with a sovereign state. 1t is not to be pre-
s,nncd that the state will SO far forget its own
character as to reject any priudte claims of
justice. The state itself can hardly feel any
deep interest lii any controversy with an in
dividua tits otherwise in regard to another
state or n foreign government The parties
are quite equal in dignity. The subject in
controversy may be such as to excite the
prejudices and passions of every man in the
community. Ii might be proper. therefore,
between the rival claims of Independent
states while no such precaution would be
necessary to protect the rights of private
claimant .. But there is a still stronger
reason. All the foreign relations of this
country, and the preservation of its union,
are entrusted to the general government
The united strengths pledged to guard every
part of our country from invasion or dismenl-
berment. Ii aparticular state should engage
in a controversy with another state or a To-
reign country, and the ordinary means of
amicable adjustment should fail, civil war
might be the consequence, in the one case
and foreign war lin the other; and thus the
union might be embroiled against its consent.
1t is therefore consistent with the strict the
Dry of our government, that all snch cases
should he submitted TO the umpirage of the
federal government. Indeed there is strong
reason for believing that this was the mean
ing of the original constitution, although it
received different construction by the SUI
preme court for, if the 18th amendment be
examined, it will be found to be decLu,utory
of what the constitutions icaS, and not the es-
adjustment of a ne,o principle. The express
sion is, ''I'he Judicial power of the United
States shall not be construed to EXTEND" Sc.
The court nevertheless proceeds TO assert.
that g the constitution gave TO ercry person
having claim upon a state, Alright TO submit
his case 10 the court of the natlon.'-If the
court speak of the constitution as il now ex-
lists, the assertion is fatty contradicted by the
18th amendment. There is no power at this
time in any individual, native or foreign, to
sue a state in the federal court Ii they
speak of the constitution asst originally stood,
the assertion IS tnimportant, if true; of which
however there Is great reason TO doubt, from
the actual wording of the amendment.
The court have made very free use of
the history of our country, to establish their
Jurisdiction on the present occasion. | have
before protested against appealing 10 any
such source of judicial power; but there is
sill more serious charge. They have given
partial, and therefore false, statement of
historical facts. They have depicted in the
strongest colours, the motives which govern
ed the people of America, in the adoption
of the new constitution. But they have
been as silent as the grave as TO the equally
notorious fact, that, while the constitution
was under discussion. the dread of consoi-
dation, and the jealousy Of federal ener0ach-
nient on state rights were so extreme, that ii
was left for a long time doubtful whether the
constitution would he adopted. This fact
comes within the personal knowledge oi
every member of the supreme court, and is
transmitted to us in all the publications and
debates of the day. How comes it, then,
the court have totally omitted such promi-
nent feature in this historical sketch /? The
whole value of history consists in its inipar-
tlality. Any designed omission of important
facts, is the worst species of the suPgessio
ueri. If this license is allowed, it will be easy
to establish any opinion by historical evil
dence. 1t would be no difficult matter to
prove that despotism is the best form of gov
ernment,by selecting those events only which
exhibit III striking point of view the evils
OF popular cornnOtiOn.
Some remarks yet remain on this branch