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

from implying that the old articles Of con-
federation, and "perpet,lal unloa" bet,yee.
the states, were to be given ui, in favour ol q
ne,c, national, and consolidated government.
strongly implies the contrary. He adds, tina,
single compact among individuals for es-
tablishIag government, is never termed
san Union" bu, that that term emphatical-
ly applies to compacts between distinct states
as was the case, rs aforesaid, in the title OF
our former articles of considerations. This
idea IS further corroborated, by the express
sion $ more perfect" connected with it. This
last expression admits the existence of a for
mer government, which is TO be continued
and improved, by a new government of the
same character.-It is absurd, then, to saw,
that the old confederation is at am end or TO
sickle for powers which can be justified on
no other idea
The supreme court have justified their iu-
risdiction III the present case, by referring TO
the Jurisdiction of the appellate courts, OF the
United States, in prize causes, under the for
mer government. Congress, by that consti-
tuition, had power to establish courts, for re-
celving and determining, finally, appeals in
all cases of capture but they had no autho-
rity to establish inferior courts, of this cha
racter. Unless, therefore, these appellate
courts acted upon the DEGREES of state courts,
they would have been wholly without iuris-
dIcton. That case, then, does not apply to
| the one before us. In the present govern
| ment, inferior federal courts are to be also
established. The supreme court, therefore,
can get jurisdiction in cases, without trench
ing upon the judiciarics of the states, or
passing the barrier which divides them.
Every word in the constitution shews that
that jurisdiction is so limited. There is no
| S.Vn xyl, al.
risdictlon of the state courts.-The court re-
pedts the idea that nothing contained in the
constitution, twould justify the " withdrawal"
of Judgment, of astate court, from the pow
er of the federal appellate court. retort the
argument upon them, by saying, that what
has never been granted, need not to be
z" withdrawn"
| The supreme court seems to have tri-
umphed, over one of the defendants counsel,
who had said, thatth construction commended
for, would operate complete consolidation of
| the states, so far as respects the judicial pow
er. They have conceded, IN effect, however
that partial consolidation must ensue A
consolidation must be the inevitable result, to
the extent OF, and quoaa the right of reversal,
actually claimed. That partial consolda-
ton will soon become total, by destroying
the checks in favor the rights of the states,
tbcb'ooitctl Will Stdte ttiulCldrleS.
The court winds up its opinion, on this
part of the subject, by saying, that the words
which import the power in question, should
not be " restricted" by a forced construc-
ton, and that those words Justify that pow
er. The words need not be Z" restricted" to
import contrary construction. The words
OF the judicial article taken singfy only relate
to the judicial power of the United States.
and to the supreme and inferior courts there
OF. Not an iota of them applies to the state
courts But these words must not be taken
| singly. There are, also, other words i'm the
| constitution, which must not be forgotten {:
words, which deny TO the general govern
ment, and reserve to the states, all powers
not " delegated" to the former, by the Con-
stitution.
The act under which the plaintiff in error
Pounds his claim, to "protection," lin the Ian
guage of the court) in this case, is not AN act
OF the congress of the United States. 1t is
an act ofthe corporation of the city ofWash-
inSton. That act is, indeed, bottomed upon
an act of congress, permitting that corpo-
ration to establish lotteries: but the act of
congress, in itself, is entirely inchoate and
imperfect II only grants authority to the
| city, to act, In the case, and may be consi-
dered, as general letter of attorney. 1t is
only the act OF the corporation of the city,
which assumes the form and character of
| specific law. If, therefore, this act, or ordi-
nance, be a statute ofthe United States, it is
| yet one, not made by the congress of the
United States, but by the corporation of
the city of Washington.-It has been deci-
| ded by the supreme court, to be an act of
the United States, in the case in question.
1t has been SO decided, by sustaining the ju-
risdiction of the court, which has no pre-
tcnce of an existence, but on the ground that
it is statute of the United States, and has
been decided against, in the state court. 1t
has indeed been also decided, by the court,
that it is not such statute of the United
States, as is competent TO override the state
law, with which it conflicts but this is only
| for want of words, denoting an intention that
its tickets may be sold, in the several states.
Had these last words been inserted, in the
power of attorney, granted by congress, and
| In the ordinance made in pursuance thereof !;
the opinion oft the supreme court is full up
to the point, of giving relief against the law
! OF Virginia, as well ass of sustaining its uris-
| diction. Admitting that an act made per-
feet, on this subject, and completed by the
| congress, itself, and not by its deputy, would
] have this extensive effect, the act before us,
cannot have it 1t is principle, emphati-
cally, applying, to all legislatures that the
powers delegated to them cannot be trans
| ferred to others. The confidence reposed in
| them, is entirely personal. If there can be
such a transference of power, the congress
might delegate it to committee, chosen by
them, and that committee might again de-
volye itupon the member they have elected
as their chairman. Is the supreme court
prepared to say, that, in such case, an act
| prepared and enacted by that chairman, is a
statute Of the United States, without the ra-
LITIGATION of congress Ipresume not. And
yet such an act has claims TO favour, which