Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1822-05-03

COHENS CASE.

u U "c " cue SVuttOUW fUtCUtGcECCT.
GENTLEMEN: ask place in your paper
lnr the enclosed statement Of the doctrine adj
vancrd by tile legislature Of Virginia during
the session of 1920, IN relation tn the appel
late power of the Supreme Court ofthe Unit
ed States, and Of the points decided by The
supreme Court on the same subject in the
case of the Cohcns against the State of Yirgi-
ni2.
THIS statement is exhibited notc, with a
hope that if there be any errcr in it, that error
may be corrected. The argument meant 10
be submitted to the public will assume that il
Is correct, unless some error be pointed out.
shall not ask any further aid from tho
National lnelligencer. The essay, which il
Is Intended shall present this subject TO The
consideration of the people of the United
States, will not appear in the columns of il
gazette. Although, in my humble judgment,
the whole matter III controversy between the
State ofNirgnia and the Supreme Court of
the United States, might, with perfect safety.
he permitted 10 rest on the truth or f;slIacy of
one proposition, aud OF enc only vet, on
such subject-a subject =" wtally affecting
the Unlon"-a subject, about which The opi-
mon of the Supreme Court occupies 50 octave
pages; rolume--a small volume at least
w'il be required Ia place bciurr the reader,
in one view, the arguments which belong, or
all those parts of the constitution and laws of
| the United States (which they are intended to
eXpnund. Ii, during the shert remainder of
my time, the people ofthe United States shall
not decd" TINS question, especially sa FAR as il
relates 10 the appellate power of tie Supreme
Court, in cases in which states are concerned.
| shall at least cnjoy the consolation of having
done my duty, and ofhavin. recorded my o.
Pnieus IN tormas permanent as that in which
Inc decisions OF tn" Supreme Court appear
Ihe statement aboveme ntioncd IL part of
an essay commenced ahoP The middle of
September last; suspended entirely before
the month WAS ended, and, since that time.
Untouched. With the CAUSES which proddc
ed this long dclhy, the public have no con
cern. III Is sufficient for my late constituents,
ana the lew WHO looked Ia me for IL vindica-
uon oi ihe doctrine which the latter acting in
conl'incloh with me, had maintained, To- know.
ihat me delay WAS una> odabr. In the course
oil the Sprng the task which had uugrrta-
Ken Will be resumed, and, without the sight
est violation OF that respect which is Justly due
10 men ii virtue and talents, aching unit.r he
most sultmn sanction III the performance 81
the highest duties, shall euieavor 10 prove.
and do believe that can prove, t!las the re-
solutions "f the legislature of Virginia, in the
session OF 1899, are III exact conformity To the
constitution of the United States.
i ain well aware of the imputatiuns which
viii be heapcd upon me, in consequence OF
lhe supposed temeTty of this undertaking.
De 1t 50 can bear them. But there are,
with respect To the State Of Virginia, two or
three points on which very erroneous opinion S
are neutrality-suspicious., To the examination
oil which, few moments shall be Devoted
In the after part of January, 1910, Il pre-
ambIc and resolutions were adopted by the lc-
| ,ri LAT .,f NIrri, Ill.
thought proper To notice in his argument in
Cohrns case. In rote suhloined to the re-
port of that case, this preamble and these re.
solutions are published at full LENGTH and from
thence they iGadc their way IntU the columns
OF the National Iatelligcncrr. The purpos,.
Tor which they were introduced by Mr.. Z. and
afterwards published, WAS To skew that Viz
SlnIa herself was once of opinion that 50 fine
| state laws and .jud5caturcs must be considered
subordinate IN those Of he Union i'm all
cases tc!Lttn The scope Of ats pO,ccrs and j,Its-
dlctton ; Ia truIsm which was never question
ed ) aud ii belief is confidently expressed that
she VIII revert To this opinion III Il moment Of
calmer reflection"
1T is somewhat singular, though not little
ilattering To Virginia, hat such ii man as Mr.
Z. should have thought it material 10 point
ont supposed discrepancy between the for
nicr and present Opinions of that state. 1t is
singular, also, that this argument should have
beeh thought worthy OF the notice of those,
whose principal employment is tocorrcct the
errors OF the judicial tribunals ~ the Uni!cd
States, and who had decided, in the case of
hlarbury and Madison, that the Congress of
the United States bad, in the Judicial act, ON
one point, mistaken the constitution of the
UrFted States, aud therefore, ought 10 have
changed their opinion; aud who did decide i'm
that very case OF the Culcus. that they them
selves had also erred ~ one opinion advanced
ia the case of Marbury and Madison In con
sequence this supposed error, difference Of
opinion was announced. But Virginia, il
seems, having once spoken, even incidentally
and remotely, is forever bound.
But let us examine this point for a moment
There Is a differences, certainly, between an
idea held out by the preamble of 1910, and
The doctrine expressly avowcd in the rrsolu-
tons of 1890. The preamble takes it for
granted, GrgaepdO, that the Supreme Court OF
tile United States do possess appellate iuris
dicljon in cases decided in state tribunals
The resolutions Of 1920, sOlcmnly and ex-
prrssly dccdrd that the SupicAe Court do
not possess this appellate jurisdiction. Ii is inn
possible TO conceive charge against Iegisla-
live body more frivolous tiIan that of having
changed lis opinion, or to make such 4 charge
on ground less teuablr.
As great dead has been said on this point, q
few brief remarks may not br iuproptr.
! /. Tie questions before the House was, not
whether the Supreme Court possessed The ju-
| rsdictlOH now under examination, but whrtner
the State of Virginia ought 10 conc,r with
Pennsylvania in an amendment tn tie con-
slitulien, providing a new tribunal To de
! ht.ft IL f,.Ia