Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1822-01-03

this state, and To make Ii subservient as a court
10 those of the U. States, since il contemplates
the registration and execution of the decree of
the supreme court, by the court of appeals
1t presents also the strange anomaly ola de-
cison being final, if in favor of the federal au-
thority, and capable of being reversed, if u
gainst it. Besides, as it confers on the supreme
court the right to decide when AN authority
OF congress, a trelty &c. is violated, it enables
that court To bring every question within the
arbtrium Gifts decision. The demonstrations
atty of this provision of the Judicial act, and
ITS dangerous and unjust bearing and ten
dency, are SO completely demonstrated by the
decision of our general court in Fecley's case,
and the very able and luminous opinions of
the judges in Hunter and Martin in the court
of appeals, that the man who can doubt after
reading those cases, must h. a sceptic indeed.
And the advocates of the opinion now adyanc-
eel may be well content To brug into conflict
the compact ard close reasoning, and true
constitutional doctrines contained in the OPT
mons 0f the Judges ofthe court of appeals, in
Hunter and Martin, with the prolix, loose and
wire-drawn argument Of Mr.. Justice Story in
Ire same case in the supreme court. Against
the reasoning Sfthe supreme court, which at
tributes the powers before described To con-
gress, are arrayed not only the contcmpora-
ncous construction of the Trainers of the lede-
raj compact as contained in the debates of the
conventions which adopted it, the opinions of
statesmen, who were advocates for and oppos-
cd TO the constitution, hut the uniform public
acts and opinions of your predecessors The
most distinguished Of ihuse acts, are the cele-
DRAFTED report and resolutions of Mr.. Madison,
adopted IN 1899, and which deserve to be re.
sistered IN letters ofgold on the walls of the
capitni, as containing the truest and best expo
siunn oi the constitution, made by one Of the
most enlightened and most active fits advu-
cafes. To the principles contained in this re-
port, those of the supreme court in the case
al the Bank ofthe l.. States and McCulluch
are dramatically opposed. And that decision
presents the strange spectacle of that portion
Hh''he court who are OF the republican party,
contradictinS in express terms the principles
which the republicans always considered OF
Sitai Importance, aud which in fact consttu-
lea the distinctive features OF difference he
tween the two great parties which he'd divid-
ed Ire nation. That this is the case, will be
seen by any person who will turn To the poll
teal works of Mr.. HamlIton and see his rea-
sonlng relative Ia the first bank law of the u
States, III opposition TO the ground taken by
Mr. Jefferson, and also to Mr.. Madisons argu-
inciN against the bank in the house of repre-
sentatives. The reasoning OF the supreme
court in the case Of the Bank u.s. Nice ulIocf.
~ ip'nN W pC !TtC!Sttf Iilt same WIFI
the doctrine commended for by MIR. Hamilton.
and which it is but Justice to the federal parry
10 say has always been commended for by them
rms VIII abundanIly also appear from Il sam
H'ary oil the federal argument on this subject
IN Mr. Marshalls 9th volume of the Lift. of
washington 1t has therefore always excited
most unfeigncd astonshment in INV mind,
how the members of the supreme court, who
a'e oil the republican party, could have suffer
ed themselves 10 unite in the declaration of
sentiments, which, if correct, prove TO dcmnn-
siration 10 any person at all conversant with
Inc political history of the United States. that
me iedcra!lsts were always correct in tllcir
principles, and that the other side in their
lhcst fundamental and essential doctrines had
been III the wrong. God forbid that should
Sontnd, That the Judges should carry party
polics or The bench, and into the admnistr;t-
non OF the Justice ofthe community This is
lar Inherent question il does not regard
matters ofpolicy or expcdiency, bnt refers 10
sentiments which are essential 10 the preser-
'a'ion OF our republican institutions, and
Whicii ought to be entertained by every public
innctienary IN this country. The prr:ump-
ZION IS he"cyer, that the Judges alluded TO,
od not see the tendency of the doctrines
which are maintained by their dersion, their
nc"mpatibility with the constitution consider
ed as a government OF limited powers, or they
would not have received the sanction of their
ngn authority Against this decision Of the
oink ana hcCulioch, your predecessors en-
ttIed ilcir most sole mn protest, and ii is be-
he'cd ihal IN that sentiment they were sup
ported by a large and decided majority ofthr
people OF Virginia. Subsequent 10 This case.
arose that of the Cohens, 10 which TO the re-
herai Ieasonngs and principles in the case of
ticCuiioch, winch the supreme court recon-
aaefed ana rc-aiiirmed, they supcradded the
novel and alarming prttensiuns of a right in
that Tribunal To revise the decision of one Of
ctr state courts, OF criminal Jurisdiction, and
10 summon the state of Virginia To- its bar.
rms doctrine So incompatible with the dig
my and sovereignty of this commonw eaiill,
was rendered the more extraordinary, because
WaePchccnt Oi the general principle, that q
siaie cannot he sued except in cases where
the laws expressly allow it, an amendment
Had beenntroduced into the constitution shcw-
Ing that the power to sue a state, except
ny another state, had been taken away An
aincndmcnt,which shews clearly that the text
oi uic constitution never intended to allow "a
ci'izcn OF one OF the states to SHE his own go
Ncrninent, in the federal court, since the a.
mendment obviously intended 10 remove eve
ry capacity, that AN individual could have TO
SIZE STATE. And yet strange to tell, the su
prenc court infer from this amendment, cou-
pied with the text Of the original constitution,
a right IN a citizen TO arraign his own state at
me par oI The federal court. The distinction
attempted between appellate and original .jI-
IiSdiction IS entirely illusory, because state
brought before Ike court by process on an APP
peal or writ Of error, is equally sued, as if il
was an original process. The right of citi-
zen TO sue his own state, on question concern
ing a violation Of municipal regulation of a
criminal character, is precisely the most Of