Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-08-17

W scarcely supposed, tlat we Should 80
soon be compelled TO charge the lntellisencer
again with Misrepresentation. Its Editors do
not relish the term but 80 rose by any other
name would smell as sweet" They misre-
presented Mr. Jeferson's letter and now they
more grossly misrcprcsent ourscvcs.-But 10
The proof
They say, " truly il is late hour of the
day for the Enquirer 10 come forward and tell
US, that the State Courts, in regard to the laws
q he United States, have Jurisdiction equal
to that of tlic United States Was this the
proposition we laid down? No; we were a.
ware that. there We're many cases in which
Inc jurisdiction OF the two Courts was dis
tinct and therefore we never made the as
sertion.-But The proposition which we did
advance was this: that when the two govern
ments were supposed To- invada each Others
Jurisdiction, the Federal government was not
" authorized ultimately, TO decide what belongs
10 itseli, or ITS co-parccnor in government !"
that, OF course, the decision of the Federal
Court was not TO he considered as conclusive
In itself, as To the rights of TIE states, the
other party TO the Federal compac,.-This
'coS our position ; and we held that il was that
OF the Old Republican party-The Intelligent
Ger chooses, however, 10 trump up :; new one,
by varying the terms In which ours was OIL
ginally couched.
Ii the lnteIIgenccr holds, that there is Il Ger
tam sphere of jurisdiction which belongs TO the
federal government we subscribe 10 th. doe
trine but lift maintains, that this jurisdiction
may be pushed 50 far in any case as that its
laws or DEGREES are TO be held conclusive upon
the states, even where they are built upon
power which is not given, and where they
trench upon the rights Of the states, we dissent
rom TINS opinion. We say it is not the doc
trine oil The constitution nor is it the creed of
the Republican Party--We shall hereafter
produce our own authorities To prove this
point for the present let us examine those of
me tntelliSencer so fur as they may he intend
ed or supposed to bear upon the point
1t refers "to the first legislation under the
constitution especially to the o5th section of
the Judicial law, which permits the supreme
court to revise certain decisions of the highest
state court: and to the debates which took
place upon that act-to prove what ? that in
1857, those who helped to frame the constitu-
ton, and knew what was in il, intended
10 give tins experimenting power 10 the U.
States over the state courts-ind of course to
assert the Incontestable supremacy of the fede-
raj over the state governments, in cases where
the federal courts had decided !? Is this the ar
gument?
In the first place, then, is the o5th section IL
sell constitutional, which gives the power 10 re-
wise the proceedings OF the state courts The
lnteiiiSenccr says it is, and refers 10 the De-
bates upon it in 1899. to prove that the sub
lcct was not specifically, but even profoundly
investigated" What subject The revising
power gwen in the 2J;h section Certainly
not; because the lntelligenccr admits, and the
proceedings prove it, that no proposition ,cGS
mate 10 StI1ke cut The o5M section" Twas not
once debated-it could not therefore have been
profoundly Investigated - in fact, it was not
investigated by the body of Congress itself 1t
was not debated; and therefore, the subject
was not SeyiGtim dccded.-What mighty reh-
ance then is 10 be placed on this authority
me fact Is, the members, without seriously
weighing The matter, seem 10 have taken il for
granted that they had a right to pass it, and
did pass ii.
The fact is, as is stated by the Intellgencer.
that the great discussion turned upon the 3D.
sect. (about district courts -Liyermore, Jack
son, and others, being against it; Smith of
. e., Anes. Madison, being for it.: the former
contendng that the state courts would do TO
execute the federal laws: that two SETS Of u-
dcaturcs would be expensive, disgusting To
the people, that they might clash, SC Sc
the other side again contending, that they
could not use the state courts as federal courts:
that congress We're bound TO " ordain and cs-
tabiish" inferior courts, which the state courts
could not he. Mr. Madison went 50 far as TO
say, that he did mot see how il can be made
compatible tc'M the constitution, or safe TO the
federal interests 10 make transfer of the
federal jurisdiction to the state courts" SC.
Mr.. smith, Mr.. Gerry, and some other mem
Ders, took the same view of the constitutions
tIhe bill with the district section in it was
carried, yeas 81, nays 16.l
No question, all this time, was made about
the 25th. section it was adopted without de-
bate, or due deliberation. Had any member
risen III his place, to push the matter one step
farther; had he asked Mr.. Madison or Gerry.
how they who denied the right " to invest the
judges OF the state courts with authority TO
take cognizance OF federal actions''-Who said
that Congress could not establish and ordain'
the state courts as inferior federal courts
could IN fact try TO make them so, by giving
the supreme Court an appellate supcrintend-
encc over their decisions; might not the diff
Guilty have struck them with some, perhaps
irresistible force They would nave gone
ON TO see that the state Judges held no COM
mission under the United States; were not
paid by the United States could not he
impeached or punished by the Z. States and
that the mandates of the supreme court W ere
IN fact, as TO them, a bruium futmen They
might have seen, that the constitution has
gwen no power to Congress TO create such =
revision and that the power, which was moi
given by the constitution, was void. Perhars,
II the light, which has been since struck out
on this subject, had beer represented TO their
minds, they might have hcsitated before they
had passed the 25th scction-On this judicial
act, however, we submit the following authori-
(which carries with it extraordinary weight :
" with respect 10 tbo opinions Of the members OF
congress, who passed The judicial act, | had not eN-
Poctcd that Hiey woud have been quoted To prove il
HaV..as lI..
in the act itself and it required the opinions Of others
NJ least, 10 Corrohorae and suppor H. Tic rnilcrnicd