Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-05-25
REPoRTED FOR THE NATIONAL NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..
Eighteenth Congress.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.


Ressired, That provision ought to be
made by law. requiring in any cause decided
IN the Supreme Court, in which shall be drawn
IN question the validity of any part of the
CONSTITUTION OF state, or of any act passed
by the Legislature of state that JUS
tees shall concur in pronOuncing such part Of
the said Constitution or act to be invalid and
that, without the concurrence of that number
Of said Justices, the part Of the Constitution
or act OF the Legislature, las the case may
beg SO drawn in question, shall not be DEEM
| ed or holden invalid.
Resolved, That the Justices aforesaid, in
pronOuncing their Judgment in any such cause,
as aforesaid, ought to be required, by law, TO
give their opinions, 18th their respective reasons
therefor, separately and distinctly, If the judg
ment Of the Court be against the validity of
the part OF the constitution or act drawn in
question, as aforesaid.
:" Resolved, That the Committee on the Ju-
dietary be instructed to report bill, in con
| tormlty to the preceding resolutions"
Mr.. Webster moved TO amend The first re
solution by striking out all after the word 4" re-
solved" and inserting
That provision ought to be made BIZ law,
that, 10 all suits now pending, or VIII ch may
hereafter be pending, in the Supreme Court
of the United States, where is drawn in ques-
tinn tbe validity Of any treaty Or statute Of the
United States, or where is drawn IN question
the validity of any statute of a state, or the
constitution thereof, or of any authority exer-
cisrd under any state, on the ground Of repug-
nancy TO the constitution, treaties, or laws, Of
the United States, no Judgement shall be pro-
DosDced or rendered until majority Of all
the justices of said court, legally competent TO
SIT IN the cause, shall concur in the opinion Ell
ther IN favor OF, or against the validity thereof
ana, until such concurrence, such suit shall be
continued uuder adj, isement: Provided how
ever, That said Court should not, by such
provision, be prevented from rendering judg-
meDt IN any such suit, when it should be Of
opinion that The final adjudication of the me-
rIts thereof did not require the decision Of
such continuance or legal question as afore-
said"
The Chair decided this amendment to be
but otorder, as there was another amendment
pending.
Mr.. Forsyth, who had offered this amend
ment, withdrew it. to allow discussion on that
presented By the gentleman from Massachu-
sets.
Mr.. Clay spoke in opposition to the amend
meDt, and in defence of the resolution as Of
fered by Dir. Letcher. He objected to that
part ofthe amendment which presrribes that
majority Of the judges, I" competence to
decide, shall be required-there being no
umpire 10 decide upon competency, and if
two declined, majority will be only three
Judges. He thought that when four Judges
| should be found on one side, and three on the
other, the united decisions of the State Legs-
lature and State Judiciary, together with tho
three Supreme Court judges would outweigh
| the Judgment Of the remaining four. He in
| sisted on the equity and policy of requiring
a ~ tha xyt,,
| ttori,y of one or of many states was to be set
| aside. He adduced the case Of the bankrupt
laws, passed by majority Of all the states as
an illustration of the position. He thought
that no danger coi,l d arise from such AN ar
rangement to the interest of the General Go
vernmeDt. 1t would sooth the States whose
laws were set aside, and conciliate the conf
dence Of all parties concerned.
! Mr.. p. P. Barbour met the objection made
! TO the resolution Of Mr. Letciier, that il it pre-
vailed, minority nigh. control majority, b.
| refusing 10 concur IN their deci.ion. This he
said, WAS no more, but much less than happened
| every day 10 the case Of an ordinary Jury.
where one mans rufusal controlled the decis.
ion of eleven men.
Mr.. Webster spoke in reply, and stated "a
Difference in these two cases, since in the
one, minority did virtually give decision.
the other,) whereas, in the other the refusal
prevented verdict, and no decision was given
on either side He went into The general pyip
clples M which the Supreme Cour, was
erected, by the constitution, as a safeguard TO
the General Government against the State
Governments, when disposed 10 violate the
constitution. He maintained that no greater
number should be required when siate.was n
party. than wbeo an individual. claiming un-
DER state law, was party because the au-
thority Of the state vas involved IN its laws
tie stated the improbsbilily that all the seven
Judges should 10 each case, attend : and, il one
Judge should he involved in the question. Eve
only would he left. II this resolution passed.
not even -four out OF these five, could decide.
He referred To the late case Of the steam boa {
monopoly which could moi have beeu decided,
as one judge was absent. and one doubtful in
his opinion. IL was fair presumption, tina,
state Judges would lean toward the authority
Of their own state. A mere majority of those
Judges could decide against the United States :
but now, more than mn jority was to ha re-
CURED TO decide Yesinst y state This was
tuaequal THE ssry case Of the bankrupt laws
quoted Ivy gentlemen, furnished strong in
stance. He protested against q greater num-
Der being required To decide u cause one way
than the other. He passed euogy on the
Supreme Court as a tribunal. It's who'll.
weight with The community rested on the
strength Of the reasons it brought for IFS
d.eigiors. He adserteJ TO the encomum
pronounced on . great judge in New York.
| Chancellor Kent, and subscribed to it With
the most entire assent. aod he quoted from an
| Introductory lecture lately delivered by that
iurist very decided testimony 20 the dis.
| iingnished character of the Supreme Court.
| Mr.. Clay repIied--and while he subscribed