Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-06-26
KICHMOND, JUNE 90. 1891.
FOR THE ENQUIRER.
Considerations on he Opinion Of he ST.
Preme Court, IN The case Of ConENs rs.
VIRGINIA.

| T,"'o SO"', W Wc case " COHENS rs.
| VIRGINIA.
have said that an examination orthe per-
nlcious consequences OF any doctrine often
furnishes the best means OF detecting the fall
iacies of a subtle andi attcnuatcd logic. To
men indeed not verscd in all the articles and
reiinements of the science of deduction, it af-
foris the only escape from the ingenious So
phistries in which they may he cntangled hv
protested diaiectican. Let us, therefore, nv all
ourselves on the present occasion ofthis prac-
teal test, III considering the opinions which
have been promulgated by the supreme court !;
and II our enquiry shall result in Il conviction,
that the well balanced political system of the
federal government is likely TO he disturbed
and its harmony interrupted, by the establish
ment OF the principles now for the first time
avowed, we may be permitted to question the
conclusion to which they have been led, how
ever acute and ingenious the rcasonings by
which it is supported.
AS it is not, however, from the decision of the
case of Cohens against Virginia. when viewed
without connection with the other doctrines
OF the court, that we can derive a correct idea
OF the full extent ofthcir opinions on this i'm.
terestng subject, beg leave 10 set down sue
cinctly some of their authorizations which bear
upon the matter in question.
| First, then, itappears that rs long ago as the
year 1T93--iour years after the adoption of
the constitution, the supreme court decided
III SUIT commenced against the state of
Georgia, that under The Sd article of the con-
sututlon, an action might he maintained in
that court against a state by citizen oil another
| state.
Secondly: In the case of Cohens against the
state OF Virginia, still greater latitude is given
to the foregoing decision. We now learn,
mat under the aforementioned article,
a state might he sued in the federal court
| cya c'tt-en Of another state; whatever might
be the subject OF controversy
That state may be carried before the fe-
deral court by its owa citizens, by appeal from
the state tribunals in all cases involving ques-
ton under the constitution or laws or treaties
OF the United States
That this right ofappcal is not confined TO
civil. but is extended also 10 criminal cases {:
and is enjoyed alike by citizens and foreign
! ers:
| Ihat the llth amendment 10 the coasfitu-
ten does not embrace the case of a writ of err
ror, because writ of error is not suit within
the sense and meaning of that amendment /:
bilt even If writ oferror be a suit,
Fnat the 18th amendment does not embrace
the appeal OF n citizen of the state against his
otcn state, though il would in that event, en-
brace The case OF an appeal against any other
state.
Thirdly, Whenever cause is removed to
the supreme court by appeal from the decision
OF state trbana OH the ground that il has
decided against the party claiming the benefit
OF some provision Of the constitution or laws
ortreaties ofthe United States, the jurisdiction
OF the court over the whole cause is complete (:
They are not excluded from the consideration
OF questions other than that which gives the
I Jurisdiction, but altho' the state court NAV
nave decided upon matter independent of
4 the constitution or laws or treaties of the fede-
raj government, and although the party NAV
not, even In the opinion of the supreme court.
nave brought his case within any of them, vet
that court will proceed TO an aflirmance or re-
versal upon points totally unconnected with
the constitution or laws or treaties of the Uni
ted States. Upon these principles it proceed
ed to affirm the judgments in the cases of
Smith VS. the State of Maryland* and Cohens
against the state ofVirginia, and to reverse the
decision ofthe court of Appeals of this state in
the case of Fairfax and Hunter.t In all these
eases, but for the principle just stated, the APP
peals would have been dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
The principles which have thus attributed
TO the supreme court are believed to be dis
tinctly avowed in the cases referred to but
as that of COhens against Virginia is most inn
medately under consideration, it may not be
amiss to advert to the language employed by
the court in announcing them, and the course
OF argument pursued by the chief Justice
argument, when analysed, may be short
ly presented in this form, as it relates TO the
first part of his enquiry:
=" The Sd article gives jurisdiction in ALL
CASES, without limitation, where either the
SUBJECT matter or the parties concerned come
within the scope ofits general expressions -
1.-The case of a citizen ofanother state hav-
ING CLAIMS against state, and that of citizen
seeking redress against its own state when the
constitution or laws or treaties ofthe u. States
have been violated in his person, do fall within
4 those general expressions" and
Therefore are within the Jurisdiction OF
the courts of the u. States"
u Ills language is clear and explicit. We are
told !" that If the controversy be between state
and citizens of another state or foreign citi-
zens or subjects, it is entirely unimportant
what may be the subject of it, as these parties
have constitutional right to come into he
e" courts ofthe Union. The constitution care
=" TO ereIy person haring a cIaim upon n state, a
rlgd TO submit has case to the court ofhe ma
" non. In these cases the character of the
parties IS every thing, tie nature Of The case
4" nothing"
And in relation TO the subject matter of the
controversy, we learn, that whoever are the
parties in the cause, AN appeal lies to the courts
of the Union from the decision of the state
courts, the case arises or the defendant
claims protection, under the constitution or
laws or treaties of the IT, S. "In these cases
the nature Ofthe case is every thing and the
character of the parties nothing" so that
although a state be defendant in error, the iu-
rsdietion of the court is nevertheless sustaina-
Bile and ON this ground it was sustained In the