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

the CONSTITUTIONS.
The charge of arrogance and iasuberdna- |!
ton ailedsed against Virginia is sufficiently re-
PEELED by the facts just men;ioAed. Yet it
may not he amiss to remark, that he Inference
derived from them is rendered conclusive by
the fact, that there Is not in the records pf the
legislature, single resolution which affords
the slightest prctext Tar such an inpvtatio. -
On the contrary, the report of 1879, from
which it is deemed in Virginia heretical TO
dissent. expressly observes, in Sepiy to the
objection, " that 1he judicial authority Of the
United States is te Se regarded as the sole
cxpostor of the constfuiiea in the last resort ,;
that however true Il paay he that the
Judicial Department, is, on avl questions sub
aited To it by the forms of The constitutions, TO
decide in the last resort, this resort must neccs-
sarily lie deemed The last, liz relation To the ait
thorltirs of the ether departments OF the go
vcrnmrnt not in rtiatan 10 the right 5 of the
parties To the constitutional compact, from
which the judicial, as we!l rs the other de-
partments, hold their delegated trusts" BY
the word parties" is meant the people OF
HI. several states, in their highest sovereign
capacity: whose " authority over the consti-
tuition" rs asserted rs distinctly as the au-
thority of the constitution over the govern
mrn." The report further states that, the
truth declared in the resolution being cstab-
ished, the cvpedicncy ofmaking the dcclara-
ton at the present day may safely he left To
the temperate consideration aud candid judg-
ment 0f the American people" The prspriety
ut making Hese declarations, and comHsunica-
ting them 10 Ike other states, is e,ain,aiacd in
the 53d page of the report. - They are"
says the report, " expressions Of oSinisa, un-
accompanied by any other effect than what
they may produce On opinos by cx-
citing reflection. The cxpositiens of the
Judiciary, on the other han:i, are carried into
immediate clfrc: by forc,- The fnrmer may
leHd To chnugc in the Legislative expression
of the general will possibly TO ii change in the
Sopinion of the judiciary the latter entrees
the general will, whilst that will and that Opt
ion continue unchanged" After this solemn
and Deliberate exposition Of the course that
ought to hc pursued by a state complaining
vi Unconstitutional proceeding. sactualIy pursu-
cd on that occasion, and never departed
from since in single instance, it is rather
more than absurd Ia charge Virginia with IA
wish to present, by legislative enrichment, the
eXecninn OF ahe laws of the United States or
ihe Judgments of their courts. For my oWn
parf, have never entertained doubt on this
suhjct. Any state may express lis opininn
zen any constitutions! suhject-msay invite thr
attention Of The other states tn that subject
may submit its views anl reasoning 10 the
consideration and Judgment al the American
people bat, on the true principles Of the
Union, il can do no more. The correction Of
Inc grievance complained of must bn of IA mn
inrity ofthe Amerieaap.opl'', expressed by II
law OF a constitutional amendment.
Nur o'ght it to he forgotten that, ia the
year 1893, daring the period which was EN-
Illaticnly called, by the proplr, The reign
of terror, Il period of the highest political cx-
element, when the republicans were dcnounc-
ed a party that ought to he humblcd in
dust aud ASHES, tie only raeas;ire having the
eenhlaecc OF opposition, which the legislature
Thought it proper To adopt, was IL law Securing
Freedom Of speech anS Of debate tu the mem
br,s 10 their representative capac5y-a right Of
which the iMvasien weuld have been tyranny
insupportahle-a right which it wousl have
been sacrilege to surrender.
| have before remarked that the whole
matter in controversy in this case might be-
rested, though certainly it will not be rested,
on the truth ar fallacy OF single proposition.
1t will lie candid, at least, TO State that propo.
sitiUn.
The Commonwealth of Virginia maintain
c,l, not only that the Supreme Court 4lave
not appellate jurisdiction, i'll Cases decided in
state tribunals where states are parties, and
most especially in criminal cases, bnt that they
have 10 appellate jurisdiction III any case
whatever decided IN Il state tribunal
The principle meant to be relied On, in sup
port of this last and general propu7iiGn,
which covers the whole ground of debate, is
simply this -t',at no parton Of he Sovereignty
Belonging 10 state, at he time Of lie 0ioption
cf Tie constitution, can BE- considered rs ceded to
tie general government or abdnd0Hee, unless
such ceSSiSn or abandonment be expressed IN
plain iroris for he purpose, or inevitably i'm
piled. This proposition is advanced, net be-
cause it is asserted, twice substantially assert
I'd by the Federaist, first IN the subject of
taxation, and afterwards in relation to the
judiciary, nor because it has been in effect
recognized by the Suprem" Court, but he
caus- il is one of those plain truths which
command assent they stated.
This self-evident proposition relieves the
clause in the constitution, concerning the cy-
tent Of the judicial power of the United States,
from every cause of perpleXity or doubt. fl
sbcws, first, that there nerFr time ~
which under the constitution Of the United
States, suit could be maintained by an indi |
ridual against state; 2dIy, That the 18th
amendment was merely dcce ifatnry 5dlv,
That the Judicial power of the United States
does cxtend to the case nl suit brought
against state, by STATE, the implication.
that state may thus be sued, being nc,ita-
bic ltbIy, That the United States caunOf
be sued rs it is admitted Ivy tie Supreme |
CourL they cannot, although nothing can he
more obvious than the truth, that thu same
principle Of construction, which CXrmp;s lEc
United States from legal process, affords the
same immunity TO states, except where states !
arc plaintifs SthIy, That the appellate .iur
isdictien af the Supreme Court uf The United
States is limited to cases decided I'D the infcr-
Tor tribunals of the United States AID, 5ihly, !
That the constitution ought trbr c<cmPi from |
the iinputaiion fixed uponii, Ivy thr d, ci,I1u
III COhens' case, which consrues IT 10 meat, |
that he Supreme Court may have appel ajc