Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-03-23

Il ~
How shall we reconcile this decision to
the ihcu avowed opini' us of hlessrs.
! Marshall. and Madison? Whar becomes
ol Mr.. MdrShaliS declarations in the Vlr-
/ giuid Couvtn,irn 2
With respect dspa,rs between state and the citizen,
OF anotet stare s jurisdiction has b. decrd with
saai N'htnfetee Eui'e no X ntei,an will think that
state ui be call dat the lar oil derai court. Is there
,ri g,a,urt Of Virginia is party, aud t, n state mo-,
sn At not ra'~a to suppose tina, tine sovereign power
states claims at in, ti,als residing in other sa,.s
coniehd tins co' siru.tii is warranted b., the words
be drflulnt--f an it, iuai proceed 10 obtain
Judgment ngii,'t state, though he ina, be by state.
II is rec To be ah D.. ayuid. a oil.
heIty IA making state defendant which pr, rent
its b itg Dainn. Ii this b. only what cannot be nyoiJed
why object TO the that srCounl II an iriiyiia
has Just claim against particular state is pre-.
Satisfaction i,ut how state recover any claim
irona ch' # aio'er STATE, Without the establishment of
| Whd, becomes OF Mr.. Madison's LAM
| guage IN the Virginia Convention "l,s
| Jurisdicti0n IN controversies between q
! state ant ciiZens of snUiher stale is
! mnch objected to. and perhaps without
| REASON. 1t rs nsi iu the power of Individuals
to cat any state into c0Uf. The only ape
| raiiOn II can have, IL, that ii . state should
IRISH tn bring sun against Citizen, IL
must be brought brtoie the federal court.
lhis will give Satisfaction 10 Individuals,
as II viii prevent citizens OH whom "a
slate may iave claim, being dissu,isii.
ed WIN the state cnur's. Ii is case
which cannot often happen, and If IL
should he fond improper, it wiH be AL
tered !'-Aga n-'' u "a state should can.
descend TO b. pa'ty. This court may take
c"gnzance Of ~.
Let u not ID" carried away by the ar.
| gumeni Ot the Court er mecesNtaie-
| The InconvenirnCes IL daDsers Thai would
result from the wan, Ot this pnwer, Ii The
| power he not gNeu, no possible neon
venitnre can Drstow 1t. II il be prupcr
10 give II, ask ior il ia lie only way m
which you can gel it,. The Constitution
wisely provides Tor lis own amt ndmen,:
aud II points omi how powers NAV be
changed, cancelled or obtained. lf YOU
reason rom HE expectancy % p,wer, and
| not ITS consiIiuiIOnaIty;i If YOU contend
that 1t ought tn have been given. and
therefore as actually given, there - no
power which may not be usurped hy the
| cunning or HE bold
| We confess tia, The reasoning of The
court upon their appellate power ~ far fr, II,
| beng conciusivc 10 our minis. The con
stiiuLon says IN express terms. that"in
all cases aft cting an bassadors. &c. ov,i
those IN ,ohich q slate shall be a pt,tv ~.
| Supreme cour, shan have original jnris-
| dicfion. In all the other cases C-iote
m ntionrd the Supreme CUR, sha
ilavc appellate jurisdiction" Nv, vAal
does tbis coufi say z" That iht consii u
| tion or law t the u. Sat, is involved
IN case, and makes pari of il. muir any,
pear IN The progress OF cause. IN winch
the courts Of the Union, but for thai cir.
cumsiancc, would have no Jurisdiction.
am which of consequence could no, orr
'aie III III" supreme court. Ia snch a case
| the Jurisdiction can De exercised only IN II,
| appellate form, That Is to say tia:
though they are expressly denied the exer-
clSr OF an app i!atr power where IA state
Is psry, yet the, wW derive u by
second implication from anutaey inferred
poNef-lhns, in truth, doing he yer,
lang which In another Stage OF tlis
| 'pini"n they have charged upon others.
w. II there be any exception, IT IS 10
| %" im'i'rd against tne express words Of
the article"
aitempi 10 get clear OF the Ilih amend
meni Ia ih constitution. They say
The objrcI OF thu amendment was not
only To- prevent The commencement O
fn'nFe SWts. bu, TO arr II iac prosecution
| OF those which might be com Nrenced whea
thts article sinai form part 0j'the coaStitu'
| ton. Bui 1t ihls had been she iD'cD ION.
why not distinctly show Il ny slipping IN
sons such lille word as " now {" how
prosecuted" or now pending ?0-Wby
sspposr that such ID merely teipD3yory
| provision. expressed ia sucl, gnuua!lfie'i
term, SHOULD have been delbera civ in
reduced INTO constitution, which This
| opinion IN ano her stage of il de fares
Ia framed Tor ages % come, and is de-
signed Ia approach immoftatity, as near
| IL ipoI A a..
| II F-I'he closing remark thar even il
HEY are mistaken. the error does not
effect the case now before the court
! that being ii case of cllzsn suing tbs
OWH state. aud therefore not within the
words at the iiih amendment,) is one Of
hose Arguments, which, with all due de
terence Ia ,he court, Is scarcely entitled
| 10 All answer.
We pass over their decision on The 2
point (hcr appellate jurisdiction over lie
| judgment Ola state court. Fhey RELY
upon their arguments IN The case Of Mar
in rs. Hunter /; and wc would rely upon
the arguments, on the other side, ~ ills
sane case decided in oar Court Of An
| prals. When The arguments OF thai couii
shall be overturned, those In The Supreme
CouI may be received as correct moi
Oilcrwsc.
| One rd more
| We dOnbt wbriheribe Court were bound
10 give an opinion on The jurisdiction or
| the merits. Questions (say they, NAV
occur which we world gladly avoid but
we cannon avoid them" But, Was il so
necessary 10 decide his case When il
ought TO have passed off upon subor.
diHaie point IL is believed that il did
mol come al all within The terms Of The
| Judicial act the court indeed assume
1 tI,.,f IL, Al l..