Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-01-11

4
ture, the subordinaiion Of the former and
the supremacy of The latter, would have
bern explicitly declared by positive
provision IN the federal constitution
The federal legislative power bears The
same relation 10 the state legislative pow
| er. that HE federal judicial power bears
10 the state Judicial power and, il Il
ther be independent of The Other, whilst
acting within it's Own sphere, both IN ISI
also be independent of the other. Aud,
II The federal legislature cannot abrogaie
state laws, the federal Judiciary cannot
abrogale State judgments. The word
supreme" as descriptive OF the federal
tribunal. is relative, not absolute; and
cvidestly implies that The Supremacy
bestowed rpon The Supreme Cnuu is
orer the inferior coHrtS 10 he ordained md
established by Congress and mol orer The
State Courts. This becomes more appa
reHt from The spporiionmeut of ivri~dic
tinn between The supreme and inferior
courts. wh,ci, Immediately follows in the
2nd clause IN The 2nd section of The same
ariicls, where it Is declared, that in all
cases affecting ambassadors, other pub.
lie ministers and conSuls, aud those in
which a state shall be a party, The sur
preine court shall have original jnrisdic-
iion." In all other cases "6efore anentio,utl =
the supreme court shall have appellate
jurisdiction. This clearly shrws All in.
ieniinn 10 limit the jurisdiction OF the
Supreme Court 10 the specified cases in
the preceding article. But limited iu-
TiSdlciiOn with an absolute supremacy
over the state tribunals would be TO lin
Itaiion al all as The power of that su.
premacy would aunihilalc every means
| IN the state governments 10 enforce the
Limitation, aud make The extent OF iuiis-
dictlon cOmmcns urale with The pleasure
OF HE Supreme Court. What more fully
torlIhes t';is conclusion Is, that if The
word supreme had conferred upon the SUI
prrme Count controul over the state
courts, IL would have beren wholy nune-
cessary 10 enlarge The jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court by a positive provision
Tor That purpos. IN subsequent, clause.
This subsequent clause declares that " in
all cases affecting ambassadors, other
pubic ministers aud cOnsuis, and those
III rhleh state shall be party. the
Supreme Court shall have original iuris
di non In allihe other spec fled cases,
The appellate jurisdiction of The Supreme
Co"ri rs hotlomed upon The power Of The
anterior courts. Hence, IL follow, THAI il
the word Supreme docs not extend the ju.
risdiction of the inferior cou:is, il does
moi extend the jurisdiction of The SUI
preme Court; The latter deriving lis powers
altogether from the former Bsi tie " ord
Shpreme cannot possibly extend lie in-
rus ,iIcllOn OF the inferior courts over the
courts OF The state, because he word Sc
preme IS not applicable 10 the interior
courts. Aud as the power OF the inferior
courts IS made the basis OF the appellate
jurisdiction o! the Supreme Court, tex
I'm Inn t.sta a
power OF the inferior courts reaches not
10 me Stale courts, II seems TO be rea
sona0le conclusion that the Supreme
Court has no jurisdiction over the state
courts.
10 defeat this reasoning, il will be in
dispensable 10 establish The doctrine that
ilir state courts are constitutional ly erected
Iaio MFR federal courts, IN pursuance
oil Tue power gwen Congress To 'ordain aud
establish lnierior eourls-The Isl section
OF the preceding article is The source of
Tins congressional power: aud tie SSH
section oi The judicial act OF Tie United
STATES, Is the re>ulI OF ils exercise That
section declares that tiua Judgment
or decree, III any suit in the highest court
| OF law or equity OF state, III which a
| decision IN Tie suit could be had, where
Is drawn IN question The validity OF a
| treaty, or statute at, or an authority exef-
cised under The United Safes, and the
dciIon Is against their validity, or where
| Is drawn IN question the validity of a sta
tuie OF, ur authority exercised under any
state, on the ground oi their being repug-
maui to the constitution, treaties. or Laws
OF the Unlied States, and The decision is
IN fduOr oftheir Uahdity, may be re-exam.
med aud reversed, or affirmed in the
Supreme CourtoI the United States, upon
| writ OF error Il VAS urged by The
Congress oi The United States whem they
| enacted this law, HAL II was necessary
| 10 inspire confidence abroad III The far
ness and impartiality with which public
justice should be- administered TO lIi.gant
Foreigners In the United States thai tie
state courts, more ultimately connected
win our people and more Immediately
dependant upon them, were too deeply
Interested io dispense impartial Justice
to controversies instituted In this country
by foreign subjects aud that internali,
onai collisions, always 10 be feared, would
sprlng from the partial judgments of the
stale rlbuuals.-Concede that tie pre-
serva'ion OF honorable peace with foreign
nations is much to be desired, and is mos
likely TO be effected by final detefmipatio,
before the federal court. of controversies in
sutnied IN the u. States by subjects OF foreign
nations SIM, The concession does not prove
that the constitution has con6ded this i'm.
PoFtdnt OBJECT eXcinSiyely to the federal tri-
bunals because, neither Judges nor iawgiyer
have aby right 10 determine that a power il
actually bestowed, merely because, in thei
E opiUion, II ought TO have been.-Bui, thi
pretended necessity tor d controlling supeTvis
Ing power IN The federal tribunals, orr iUd;e
rather in the fictious OF the imagination Thar
in the enlightened dictates Of The understand
ing. The people Of the United States hav
Solennly decided that il is no cause 81 Offence
to foreign nations 10 have their controversial
finally decided by the state tribunals an,
have by an amendment Of their constitution
taken away from foreigners the right 10 su