Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-06-08

uncandid as IN the others. IL would, again,
nsinuate that the sole purpose OF the writ OF
error, is to rc-exanine the question whether
the constitutions Sc. had been violated. II
is also uncandid TO say, that the effect Of that
writ is not to restore the plaintiff, To the pos
session of thing, that he demands. If the
money of the plaintiff i'm error had been
made under the reversed Judgment, pre-
sumo that il would have been restored TO him,
by the effect of the writ of error, and the
Judgment of reversal by the supreme court !:
and there can surely be no real difference
between writ of Terror sued out, before, or
after the levying of the execution.
The court then goes ON To say, that if they
are mistaken as To this effect ola writ of err
ror, and il writ of error be suit, within
the meaning of the eleventh amendment to
the constitution, the one before us is, yet,
not a suit within The operation of that amend
ment, it not being suit prosecuted by a
6 citizen of another state, for by sfdte,) or
shy subject or citizen of a foreign stated
must hereremarlS, by the way, that the court
errs in supposing that that amendment ex-
tends TO suits brought by" a stated pro-
coed TO remark, that the court is of this Opt
mon, because, on the contrary, the plaintiff
is citizen ofVirginia, aud because, by the
constitution as it originally stood, the judicial
power was extended, to all cases arising
under the constitution, SC. without respect
ofrarties, and therefore included cOntrover-
sizes between state and its own citizens.
The amount of this reasoning seems to be,
that although the court would be bound by
ajurisjiction once given, and then retracted,
by the people of the United States, even
when the construction of that constitution
should come in question, it would assume it
without hesitation in a case in which it has
never been granted, or ifgranted, only grant
ed by remote and distant implication and
yet the court is as much bound by the tenth,
as the eleventh amendment to the consttu-
ton (which declares, " that the powers not
g delegated to the United States, by the con-
stitution, nor prohibited by it to the states,
. are reserved to the states, respectively, or
6 to the people"
As to a jurisdiction between state and its
own citizens, there never was any pretcnce
TO say that it ought TO be granted, to the
courts of the general government, in any
form, or qaoad any subjects. In addition to
the general objections to it, before stated,
there was no necessity for it. The most
isverish and unwarrantable Jealousy of the
state tribunals, never apprehended any want
OF lmpartiafty in them, towards their own
citizens In relation To the citizens OF Other.
states, some imputations of partially were
indulged, and by the original constitution, a
jurisdiction as to them was conferred. Even
that idea was spurned by the states, and
hence resulted the eleventh amendment. In
repudiating the jurisdiction of the federal
courts, in relation to the citizens of other
states that amendment more than abandon
ed the claim, as it related to citizens of the
same state. 1t was abandoned, ON the prin-
eiple, that il had never been given and on
the further principle, that the greater in
Guides the lesser No man had ever said,
or believed, or thought, that it ought to have
been gwen, or was given. The proDosition
would have been Indignantly spurned, if
made, at the time of adopting the constitu-
tlon.-The idea is but newly started,-I had
almost said, trumped up. II has been drawn
out, from one of those hiddenreservoirs, from
which the supreme court is in the habit of
drawing supplies, of principles, that are to
denoish ana destroy our happy confedera-
ton.
The supreme court, in asserting its appel
late power, over those OF the States denies
tRat the judgments Of the latter are indepen-
dent of their power or that the states
4Dodd their ludciaries, are to be considered
as independent states and they say, that
there are no iCords in the constitution, con-
veying contrary idea. might say with
more force, conuerSo, that there are no
words in that instrument, delegating this APP
pelate power, to that court. [ may also say,
that the appellate power given to the SUI
prenie court, is amply satisfied by reference
to the inferior courts of the general govern
ment. The same system, however, which
for the 4ayorite purpose of INCREASING the
powers of the general government, dispenses
with oil laws and rules, whatsoever, on the
subject ofpdrties, may as naturally go on,
and for the same purpose pass the bounda-
rics established between the two govern
mcnts and thus the courts of one govern
ment, be let in to reverse the judgments of
another. While it is admitted, with the s,i-
preme court, that tn many purposes the
United States form single nation, it is
claimed, Oh the other hand, that they form
several and sovereign nations, as to all other
purposes. They form several states or ma
tons, exceptin cases, and as to powers, as
TO which, by grants Ofpower, in the consti-
luton, they have consented to be one ma
ton and no such grant as that now in
question, is to be found in relation TO the APP
pellate power. In relation to such an ano-
maous, unusual, and important power, it
would not have rested on implication, had it
been intended to be conveyed it would have
oeen given, III express terms. 1t is not
enough for the supreme court, therefore, to
say that as to many purposes, the United
States form a single nation. They ought to
80 ON and say, that they do so, as to this
purpose. They ought even to put their
finger upon the specific clause, in the con-
stitution, which contains the special delega-
lion of it. Nor is it enough for the court to
say, or even to prove, that it highly rea-
sonable, that qload this power, also, the
limited States should form but one nation.
Ihnt is an enquiry proper for the next con
Ventl0n, called to amend the constitution, or
Tor 1np - fl,o r. 4