The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1826-05-04

consulted, and especially consulted, can
not understand; bat, for some reason, | dc
not know what, that interest Is Not re-
garded. | the Legislature, or any Of ~
members, are jealous of the Jndlclay-l
see no reason for any jealousy. but i
they are jealous, is that reason why The
interest OF the private suitors should not b,
consulted? The powes of the Judiciary i.
what the constitution makes it, and must
be till the constitution is altered; and 1
modification the system that would con
fine the Supreme Court TO the duties OF the
Supreme Court, will not enlarge or dimin.
ish that power; but would leave II Just
what il now is. Ifthe states, or any OF
them, have their griefs or their fears occa.
stoned or alarmed by this Department
with or without reason, why should that be
permitted to affect the interests Of the pri-
vate suitors9 II the prostration of state
rights, or ii the consolidation Of the Union
be the danger felt or affected, this danger
Is independent ofthis modification Of the
system-it is unaffected by tins modifica.
tion-it is neither more nci less os ac-
count ofthis modification.
Again: this sepa ration; Out if what am
now going to say should excite some sur
prise, let me be heard out without prepos-
session; let ii be considered before it be
rejected; let me say with Themistocles,
"strlkc, but hear mel say, then that
this separation Of the duties, of the two
Jurisdictions, the original and the appel
late, was intended and expected By the
constitution The constitution docs not
make Judge Of the Supreme Court, ex-
oticlo Judge of the Inferior Courts. He
may be made soby special appointment
and commission; but he is not so, ex-oiiicio.
The contrary construction and practice
under it, Is one that one day may give rise
to questions that NAV involve consequen-
ces 1t were much better to avoid. Ii may
do well enough as long as individuals a.
lone are concerned. But time may come,
God forbid that it should come, )when COM
blnntions of men under the connivance or
countenance OF state or states, shall re-
5lst the execution Of The laws; and shall de-
tend themselves, or be defended, on the
ground, that the Inferior Courts have no
constitutional power 10 enforce them.-It
is easy to conceive how this might involve
the ditiicultiesofsh moste en-
barrassing nature; it is not necessary TO
point them out, they will suggest them
selves to every rejecting mind. Is it ad-
vlsable TO leave the country exposed to this
possible danger? 1t may be said that this
danger may be prevented by special np-
poIntment and commission of the Judges OF
the Supreme Court as Judges ofthe In
ferior Courts.
But would this be advisable now? is it
not too late: would it not tend to throw
doubt over questions that are now con-
sidcred as at rest. and which ought to be
SO consdered; over the whole train of de-
ision heretofore made by the Inferior
Coutts?-Will it be said, that this danger
is built on an imaginary foundation? put
it to every lawye, i'll the Senate, to say if
the constitution makes Judge Of the Su-
preme Court, ex- otlicp, a Judge OF the In
ferior Courts.--The constitution vests the
Judiciary power in one supreme court, and
in such inferior courts as Congress shall
establish; it gives to these Inferior Courts
the original jurisdiction, and the appellate
jurisdiction to the Supreme Court; but it
does not say that the Judges the Supreme
court shall be Judges Of the Inferior courts,
as it would have said had t,is been intend
ed; but it does say what amounts TO saying
the contrary; il says, "that NE Judges both
OF the Supreme and Inferior courts, shall
hold their Offices" &c; clearly implying
that the Judges are to be different persons.
| ask the learned lawyers OF this Senate,
whether the Judges ofthe Supreme court
are ex-ofiicio Judges of the District courts |?
Why not, if they are ex-officio Judges Of
the inferior courts, Of which the District is
one? Bot will any one pretend this3
presume 10 one. Ifthen the constitution
intends separation of the two jurisdic-
tons, and to have them exercised by diff
ferent persons, why should we hesitate TO
make the separation, when it is required
by the constitution, and recommended by
the special interest OF every suitor TO those
Jurisdictions.
IL appears TO me, also, TO be wrong in
principle, that the two Jurisdictions should
be blended together, and exercised by the
same person. To give an appeal from a
Judge to the same Judge, would be mock
cry of the sutor; the pride Of opinion, the
pride of consistency, the pride Of feputa-
tion, incident to human nature, AID insspp-
rable from it, aud TO be found in tire Judge
rs well as in every other man, would make
such All appeal mere mockery TO him.
Who in his senses would expect Judge
to convict himself of error Of opinion? II
there are some instances on record, they
are few, precious few indeed, Of such mag
nanimity; the very admiration which they
excite, is a proof how very little they are
| to be expected. The appeal here, it is
true, is 10 the same Judge conformity with
the other Judges; but he himselfsits, or dc.
clines sitting, according To his own sense
of propriety. ] believe, in practice, he
declinea sitiinn bnt all the Inlnes