Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-03-06


sitlon, '" that no common arbiter has been cstab-
'shed Tor constituting it," and that each state has
accordingly right 10 construe il for ITSELF" The
second section Of the third article Of this compact
contains the following clause: :. The judicial pow
er snail extend to all cases in Ia,o and equity a.
'1sing under this cons titutior. the ldtcs of the "
y, ana treaties made, tcbich shall be made I'm
Ger their authority to all cases affecting amhas-
sadors other public ministers and copsuls; TO all
cases oil admiralty and maritime Jurisdictions; to
controversies, to tchich the u. States shall be a
parry; 10 controversies bettreen t,co or more
std.es, oef,ceen q state and citizens of another
Stdfe between citizens Of different states between
citizens Of the same state claiming lands under
grants of different states, and between a state or
The citizens thereof and foreign states citizens or
subjects" And the only Limitation in this clause,
| amendment: 1.-THE judicial power of the United
States shall not be construed to extend to any suit
In law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against
one OF the U. s., by citizens of another state, or
citizens or subjects Of any foreign state,
Can any one, sir, read these plain and eSs,icit
expressions OF the constitution, and deny that they
constitute common arbter.'' for constituting
the compact between the states? The judicial pow
or Oh Inc On'on, power in organizing which,
eacn state participates extends emphatically ssto
all cases OF law s equity arising under the consti-
tu'ion, no matter, who may be the parties to them;
and to all cases, with the exception of those emu.
merated in the 18th amendment, to which either
the United States a state shall be party. no
matter what may be the character of the contro-
versy involved. And will il be contended that the
power thus authorised to decide call cases of law
anu equity arising under the constitution has no
authority Tor determining what is case s'of law
and equity arising under the constitutions" If this
be true, then the decisions of all our courts
whether state or federal, in questions involving
their own jurisdiction, usurpations of power-,f
this be true, then the exploded doctrine of the
Eastern States during the late war, that the gov
eminent authorised 10 call out the militia in GER
tain emergencies, had no right to determine when
these emigencies occurred, is correct.-Is Virgin
| la prepared to contend for this.
Again, sir; the judicial power extends oio con-
| froversies to which the United States shall be a
party, as well as TO controversies between two or
more states, or between state and citizens of
anoiner state. Can language be more expiicit?
snail we undertake, on vague and unce Ftain
grounds, TO deny power expressly granted? Can
we disciam the jurisdiction of Federal courts Sin
controversies, to which the United States are
party from an apprehension, however we'll
iounued, That they may lean to that power, by
which they we're created? Or can we deny the
authority Of their decisions, Sin contro versies to
which the states are Parties,' on the ground that
the sovereignty OF state forbids its subsection to
any other jurisdiction than that of its own courts!
1t will surely be admitted that the states in form.
ing the compact which binds them toge Their
had right to divest themselves of whatever at
tributes OF sovereignty they pieascd-and extra
oruihaly indeed must DO that logic, which admit
ting the jurisdiction of the Federal courts "n all
CONTROVERSIES, to which the states are parties
nevertheless denies the existence of"a common
arbiter," for constituting the instrument in which
this Jurisdicti is expressly given
But what, sir, was the language of VIRGINIA in
relation to this subject, on former occasion, In
the year 1909, the State of PennsylS ania having
made an uDavaing attempt 20 resist, by force
Vi arms n decision OF the Federal court, in
vading, as she commended, her sovereign rights
proposed so to amend the constitution of tho Uni
TED States, as TO provide special tribunal for the
se'uement OF controversies between the State and
General Governments. To this proposition, the
Legislature OF Virginia replied on the 26h OF Ian
nary, 1910, in the following eloquent and unan-
| swerabIe language:-" tribunal is already pro-
vided by the constitution OF the United States
more emlnentiy qualified from their habits and
duties, from the Dode Of their selection and from
the tenure of their Offices 10 decide the dis !
putes aforesaid, IN an enlightened and impartial
manner, than any other tribunal which could be
erected The members of the Supreme Court
are selected from those in the United States who
are most celebrated Tor virtue and legal learning
not ut the viii Of single individual, but by the |
concurrent wishes Of the President and Senate Of
the United States. They will therefore have mo
local preIudces and parialiles. The duties thev |
have to perform, lead them necessarily to the most
enlarged and accurate acquaintance with the iuris
dcton OF the Federal and several State courts TO-
gether, and with the admirable symmetry of our
government The tenure of their Offices en- ,bles
them to pronounce the sound and correct opinions |
they may have perform, without fear, favor. or |
Partially, sc. SC. &C." Mr. Speaker, I will no, |
weaken the force of the extract have read vo, from
the proceedings of a former Legislature by add
ing another word on the subject to which il relates
but to entreat those lam now addressing, not TO
exhibit themselves in the painful Contrast with
their enlightened predecessors, which thew must
do, by now declaring, in the language of the re,o
luton before you, that 'there is no common arhi
ter Tor constituting the constitution of the United
States.
! should almost feel myself justified by the g.
Iaoorate consideration have given to this byanch
OF the frst resolution OF the committee, TO pass
u6honcea' the remaining proposition contained in
II. VI have succeeded in showing, that the Fed
ersi courts are expressly constituted into 'a com.
mon arolter Tor constituting the compact between
the states, 1t must follow, Of course that each
state has not a right TO constrre the colnpae; for
ltseif. But there is something in this proposition
so enormous, so pregnant with mischief 10 the
peace aud harmony of the Union, that | owe il to
my country, to strip Of its ambiguity, and expose
II IN all its nake6ness Of deforni,y. ,
II the declaration Of the committee meant no
more than that extreme might ayise in which
corrupt and proiiigate administration, might by
course oil UNREASONABLE usurpation, endanger
The rights and eventhe exis Of state, and
thus leave II no other alternative than open and
unqualified resistance. il would assert propos;tion
that must command universal assent. The states
stand in relation 10 the federal government, ure.
cisely as individuals do to the state governments |
And asin the latter, cases OF individual opvression
might occur, in which the question of submiss;on
or fe'istanee would become question Of espediencv
and policy, so in the former, corruption might he
come so gldrlng, and usurpaiion so overybeIminq
az to justify state in endeayoring 10 efTer, a re
voluiioD in the government.
But, unfortunately, we arc nof ,crr,;p.J .. 81
ieve' mat such was the meaning Of the commit.
tee. ihey Oh not look to those extreme cases for
when no constitution can provide. The whole n