Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-06-01


laws of the United States, must refer To my
former remarks, rs to the exceptions Under
which 1t is TO be taken. If it was clear that
these words comprchcnded CONTROVERSY
also between a state and its own ItiZens.
then that jurisdiction would pass, tosless il
We're again restricted by particular excep-
ton. But those words are not so extensive.
Ihey do not reach this cause, becaT.e ofthe
delicate nature of the jurisdiction ;Ale want
OF a necessity for it !; and by being omitted
IN the particular specification, In this case,
the principle of all and some" COMPATIBILITY
apphes. I'LL powers are not considered as
gwen, where some are specifically euumerat-
ed. This is, in various instances, the very
genius Of the American constitution.
As to It's being said, by the court, that the
general words aforesaid, also embrace this
case, that is the very thing which is TO be
proved. she case cannot come before the
court, unless there be proper parties, TO the
controversy, and sovereign state cannot be
made party, in the courts of another state.
without its consent. The authorities already
referred to, ON this subject, are quite concl,-
sivc. IN q case of doubtful construction. this
irresponsibllity of the states TO another i,,ris-
dichon should turn the scale, and exclude the
cognlzance in question.
While it is admitted by the court. that a
citizen cannot sue his state in the federal
court, where his case depends upon the CON
sutution or laws OF such state, it is ayerred
that the case Is otherwise, where it depends
on the constitution, or laws, of the United
states. The ground of difference is sllppos-
ed to be, a want of impartiality in the state
courts, in relation TO the latter. That idea
Is, however, reprobated by the omission to
nrOyldp ciIci, ~, tl,,,
In It's original character 1t is only by way
OF appeal, that the pretension now in ques-
ton IS SGT up. But if the ground of that
pretension has a real existence, this case
ought to have been included with the others,
IN the specification contained in the third
article OF the Constitution. | will here re-
mark, that while controversies between two
states, oughtnot to be decided in the courts of
eitler, and While 1t may be, plausbly, urged,
ihat the courts OF state may not be impair
tiai, III eases existing between it and citizens
oil 0nofheT state, no such idea has been ever
entertained, IN relation to its own citizens.-I
snail touch tins pclot again, hereafter. At
present shall only again remark, that the
ground OF the pretension has no existence !:
iorif 1t had, the oiigincl, rs well AS appellate.
jurisdiction, would have heen extended TO il.
The court has claimed the extensive iuris-
oiction, now in question, on the principle.
that the Judicial power, in eevery well-con-
stiiuted government, should be co-extensive
with that which is legslaiiye.--In a govern
ment of general powers t1s principle may.
perhaps, be true. So it may be, that our
government Is not well constituted" in This
particular. ii so, an amendment of the con-
stitution IS the correct remedy. But ours is
not a government Of general powers. All
the departments OF that government are re-
strc'ed, by the actual limitation Of their
powers. Congress, BY the constitution, has
40 other legislative powers, than those which
are thereby granted: and the extent of the
Judicial powers, is TO be measured bv the
actual grant, contained in the third article.
rms iiea OF The supreme couct might deserve
CONSIDERATION, IN another forum. But, in
protesting tn decide what the constitution
actually as, tins idea IS improper, and map
phcable. construction which is commen
srlrate with the judicial power actually grant
ed, by the constitution, notwithstanding the
general words aforesaid, and which can
be, otherwise, abundantly satisfied, cannot
be said to be, in the language OF the court,
g contracted"
The court has foreseen great miscbjefs.
resulting from denial ofthis urisdicton.-It
is said, that the government and its laws
would be Frustrated at the feet of the several
states.-Ths argument turns in circle. If.
on The contrary, there is no check existing.
on the part OF the states, or rather, on the
part oil the constitution, as provided for in
favour ofthe states, all the states in the Union
might be demolished by the supreme court.
1t is Just as probable that the government of
the United States will usurp more than it's
Cue share OF power, as that the states viii
withhold what Is its due. Ii is inst as proha-
bic, that unconstitutional laws will be execut-
ed, to the injury of the states, rs that those
which are constitutional, will be impeded or
resisted. III the Judgments ofthe state courts
cannot be corrected by those ofthe courts of
the United States, some Inconvenience. in
some cases, may ensue to the general gov
ernment: but if tdey can, great oppression
may arse to the states, and their laws and
liberties he swept away. If each party pos
sesses a0eto upon the acts ofthe other, il NAV
cause some delay, and even an appeal to
theT common superior, the people. This,
however is better than that absolute submits
SION by one party, and absolute desnotisrn by
the other, which is death to the existence of
liberty. Such is not the genius of a federal
government, where each party has its recip-
rocal rights. 1t is the blind and absolute
despoiism which exists in an army, or is ex-
crossed by tyrant over his slaves.-It is as
wen, II the court plcases, that the course Of
the general government should be arrested
Tor season, as that the rights of the states
should be forever swept away
The supreme court, pursuing this idea, does
not deny hut that confidence must be repos-
ed but they contend that it should he only
reposed IN them. 1t may he as safely rppos-
ca IN the state governments, rs IN them If
the states haze, sometimes, erred, i'm refusing
to the general government its due powers,
granted by the constitution, ii has only been
IN detail, and without any concert between
them They have, on the contrary, rescued
The country from Che greatest calalnifies rs.