Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-05-29
RICHMOND, MAY 90, 1891.
FOR THE ENQUIRER.
On THE LOTTERY DECISION.
70 Me People Of Me United .Stais.


The address OF the supreme conrt is re-
markabe, fcllow-citizcns, in the very outse,
OF their opinion. After stating that the CON
ToVersy IN question, arose under conflicting
acts oil the general and state governments, it
ADDS, that, IN the state court, the plaintiff in
error claimed the protection" of the act OF
congress. This word protection seems
to import the entire innocence of that party.
II also implies, that the act of the corpora
ton of Washington, under which he acted,
was entirely without blemisll, and that the
Statute OF Virginia, under which he was pro-
secuted, was wholly indeiensible. Nothing
can ne more remote from the truth, than all
these positions and all this is even admit
Yea, 10y the supreme court itself. But for
me conflicting act of the city of Washington,
dlgniied by the supreme court, with the
name OF statute of the United States,
mere Is no pretence to say, that the statute
Vi 'lrgnna was ut all Objectionable and the
court, itself, has admitted, that the act of the
city OIL Washington is incompetent TO retaru
It's execution. This last mentioned act ia,
'huer the actlaldecision of the court, void
authority, when taken III relation to theter-
rltory OF Virginia il, therefore, affords no
.usiiiica'lon, nor can give any "protection'
10 'ne person Who acts lndcii it. (a) From
nesileSinS OF The court ITSELF therefore, the
piaiiltiu IN error was not innocent, nor could
Justly clam the protection" of the act Of
congress. That word, therefore, was m.-
fortunately selected by the court, in this in
stance: but it was not so selected. witbout
an object. That object was. to excite YOUR
sympathy, on the side of the appellant and
to propltlate your Judgment, in favor of the
principles 1t had determined, in this case. 10
establish
ihe court have next proceeded to say, for
the purpose of giving themselves jurisdiction,
IN TINS ease, that the court of hj,stinCs Of the
borough Of Norfolk, in which the Judgment
appealed from was rendered, was the shigb
est court of the state, in which the cause
was cognlzable." On the contrary, hum
bly, apprchcnd, that if the information In
question be considered az a criminal prose
cutloD the circuit court for the county. and
perhaps the general court of the common
wealth, have appellate jurisdiction. | infer
tilis concusively, from the statutes referred
TO in the margin. OIL also think it not i'm
possible, but that as the object of the infor-
nation was to recover sum of money due
To the commonwealth, although, in form, il
mas The appearance of criminal proceeding,
III substance 1t might be held to be n deci-
sion upon civil right ; and if so, an appeal
would lie uponit, to the supreme court OF
the commonwealth, under the distinction
taken by that court, in the case of Bedinger
against the Commonwealth (c) In any
view, however, the court of hastings of thu.
borough OF Norfolk, was not the highest
court IN the state, in which the case was
cognzabie, and it was, therefore, prema-
turely carried INTO the supreme court of the
United States. The error, if one existed
might have been equally well corrected, in
ono OF the appellate courts of the state
Probably.
been conceded by the counsel, or, possibly.
1t may have been .feigned by the court.-A
practice OF that kind is not without exam
pie, IN that high court. (d) Such a practice
may he, also, very convenient TO the SUI.
preme court, IN furthering its favorite object.
oiexporndng the constitution, in the gross,
ana settling, by anticipation, the real causes
which may come before If.
The court proceeds to say, that the de-
lcndant IN error moves to dismiss the writ
OF error, on three grounds, which are part
cularly stated. If the foregoing ideas be
correct, the court should have added anoth
er ground OF objection, and, ITSELF have dis
missed the suit. 1t should have permitted
'he appellate courts OF the state to have cor
rected the error which is complained of.
1t is said, by the supreme court, that two
OF the points made at the bar, are of great
ii"S'i.'ue, anu may ne SAD, vitality to affect
ihe union. II they even do, and yet power
mas hol Deen gwen to the supreme court, to
interfere, the evil must be submitted TO. We
must say with the venerable George Gin.
ton, (e) that the powers of the general 90
vernment ought TO be extended. if il be
necessary but until they are extended,
let us only exercise such powers, as are
clear and undoubted." Several modes of
| amending the constitution, being provided.
therein, the supreme court oughtnot on the
mere plea of danger, to interfere. This is
| always the tyrants plea, and was the plea OF
| the infamous shlp-money Judges, mentioned
in my first number The supreme court
must go by the charter of the constitution.
| and have no right to say, that that would
destroy the union, which the convention did
not think would do so.-BesiCes the con-
iederacy of the states, and the constitution
establishing IT, is as well destroyed by TAX
ing from the members thereof, the powers
reserved to them, by that constitution, as by
denying to the head of that confederacy.
even those belonging to it. II can be -
wen destroyed by claims or powers ola cen
tripetal, as those of a centrifugal tendency.
The supreme court has said that the first
point made In opposition to the jurisdiction
of the court, is, that a state is a defend
ant. This is not n candid ar accurate
statement of the obiection.-Tt is admitted.
on all hands, that a state may be defend
ant IN the supreme court of the United
States, IN the cases specified in the third ar
tlcle of the constitution: but il is denied.
that she can be made so, at the suit ofo one Of
her own citizens, or that the jurisdiction of
the supreme court, in the case of state.
can be exercised in its appellate character.-
AS It is in this last character, that the iiris-
diction in this case is claimed, and as it is
admitted, by the court, that the plaintiffs in
error are citizens of Virginia, it is evident