The Massachusetts spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1821-1823, 1822-01-02
WORCESTER.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2, 1922.
-.Oss0@

congress. to the Constitution Of the United
States, giving appellate jurisdiction, upon Con-
stitutional questions, to the Senate and we
ascribed the proposition, among other causes,
to the hostility of Virginia towards the Court,
:" for entertaining jurisdiction of a cause be-
tween that State and one Of its citizens, in
which the construction Of an Act of Congress
was involved" The editor of the Keene SEN
tine, in copying our article, afixes to the fore
going passage the following note -
The case, VirginiG VS.. Cohens, is probably
here referred to. If we rightly rccollect, Co.
hens, vender Of lottery tickets, in Virginia,
was held to answer for vending tickets in a
lottery granted by Congress, in violation Of a
statute of Virg:1ia--that State claiming the
privilege, invariably exercised, G: r. ohibiting
the sale of other tickets than of lotteries in
pursuance of her own laws--as it is evident
the object of a State lottery might be wholly
frustrated if other tickets were not excluded.
Cohens appealed, and the Supreme Court of the
United States decided against the State---or
rather by implication maintained, ';that if
Congress Lad, in granting lottery for The BEN
eft of the District of Columbia, made legal
provision for vending the tickets in all and any
parts of the nation," (Which was NOT the case
in this instance, no provision having been made
for selling the tickets out of the District,)
"then the law of Virginia, prohibiting the sale
of tickets within that State would have been
nugatory, and the Court would sustain an &c
ton brought by those DESTROYS of selling the
tickets in Virginia or in any other State.n Now
If the lottery granted by Congress had been for
national purpose exclusively, to finish tie
Capitol, or for any object to aid the National
Treasury, we should say the decision was cor
rect, aud no statute of an individual State
should have bearing upon the sale of such
tickets. But if the object was not of this ma
tCre, but for purposes local, the lottery was, in
fact, granted only by the Legislature Of the
District Of Columbia, congress acting in that
capacity,) and the law in question has no au-
thority paramount to Virginia or even Della
ware. Virginia, in this case, has right TO
complain Of elcroGchn,eru upon her State rights
ii. e. if the lottery in question is the one
granted for erecting two publicls School
houses, Pententiary, and Town-Hall," in
Washington. These are not national objects.
Ohio has no such plea. The Bank of the Unit
ed States is a national object, of great magni-
tude, and to confne its operations to the Dis
trict of Columbia would be to defeat at once
the object in view.
We copy this note of the Sentinel, for the
purpose CT noticing what seems to us a misap-
prehension of the subject by the editor of that
paper, which tends to impair the force Gf they
had any Of our remarks.
1t was, as he supposes, the case of C0kenc
which excited the ill-temper of Virginia. CO.
hens, however, did not "oppear' from the de-
cision Of the State Court against him for if he
had, the question raised by Virginia, and the
point SO pertinaciously maintained by her,
could not have been mades After the decis-
ion against him by the State Court, Cohens
removed the suit to the Supreme Court of the
United States by acru Of errour, and tlus the
Commonwealth Of Virgi7siG was made Defend
ant at the suit of one of its citizens. The queg-
ton made by Virginia was as to the jurisdiction
Of the Court under these circumstances and
this was the only question argued in behalf of
that State: for when the opinion of the Court
was pronounced in favour of its jurisdiction,
the counsel for the State, in compliance with
instructions, refused to argue the main guess
ten, on the ground that The Court had ltsurped
jurisdiction of the cause. 1t was not the de-
cision Of the Court upon the merits Of the case
between Virginia and COhens, at which the
former complained, for the decision was con-
formable to that of the Virginia Court; but it
was because the Court entertained jurisdiction
ofa suit brough. (as Virginia contended) against
Q. State by one OF its own citizens.
Il, then, our recollection is right on this sub
jcct, Qorw have nothing at hand to which to
Taler) it follows that it is immaterial to inquire
for UhGt purpose the Lottery was granted by
Congress, or whether the opinion of the Court,
maintained by implication" as TO the au-
thority of Congress OIL this subject, be right or
wrong. Virginia does not complain that the
Court erred in point of law. Every dissatisfied
sttitor might do that with as good grace
But she complains of The authority Of The Court
Itself, and denounces it as an UsURPArroN.-
Hence the language of the GOVERNOR of vir-
ginia, in his late Message to the Legislature of
that State. " The Supreme Court of the Unit
cd States" he says, g csrogates 10 itself, all
ways, the high authority to judge exclusively
IN the last resort, how far the federal compact
is violated, and 10 arragn before it not only the
decisions OF the State Courts, bit the States
tie1nselcca."
Thus, therefore, we ascribed the hostility of
V;roinia towards the Supreme Court, a0t to