Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-11-05
MOT in the last Legislature.
THE FEDERAL JUDICLaRY

IL Is subject OF deep regret TO Of Mr.. Madi-
out by the party of Messrs Webser and Everett Co
upon the grounds which he has assumed in his recent
Letter. Some OF the opinions, which he there main
ains, appear TO be in direct conflict with his memorable
Report, at oncehe great of his fame and
the great Shbboleth of the Republican Party.
In 80 the States of Rhode Island, Massachusetts,
New Y OK, New Hampshire, and Vermont, passed re
solutions, which were in direct contraventon of those
OF the Virginia Legislature in '9S. These states
asserted the supremacy of the Federal Court on Const-
tutional questions Their doctrine may be summed up
in the following resolution Of New Hampshire: ere
solved That the State Legislatures the proper -
bunals to determine the consuonalty of the laws the
General GovernmeHt-that the duty Of such decision is
properly and exclusively confded to the Judicial De.
partment."
The Virginia Report Of '99--IsO0 was partly intend
ed to refute this resolution and triunphanty did il
overthrow its position 1t shcws from the very 'naure
oil compacts that 'where be had 10 no trbu
nall superior to the authority of the parties the parties
themselves be the rightfu Judges i'm the last re
whether the bargain made has pursued violated
&chat "the States being the parties the Constti-
ional compact and in their sovereign capacity il fol-
lows oil necessity that there can be tribunal above
their authority TO decide in the last resort whether the
compact made by them be violated; and consequently
that, the parties TO il, they must themselves decide
n the last resort, such questions may be of sufficient
magnitude to require their interposion THE Report
denies that "the Judicial authority is be regarded as
the sole exposition Of the Constitution in the last resort
and that however true il may be that the Judicial de-
partmen is IN all questions submitted to il by the forms
oil the Constitution, to decide i'm the last resort This
resort must necessarily be deemed the last in rela
ton to the authorities Of the other departments of the
overnment not in relation TO the rights Of the parties
the Constitutional compact from which the Judicial as
well as the other departments hold their trusts
On any other hypothesis, the delegation Of Judicial pow
or would annu the authority deegaing IT. and the con
currence Of this department with the others in usrpef
powers, might subver forever and beyond the possible
reach OF any rishtfu remedy, the very Constitution
which all instituted TO preserve-But the Lete,
takes another tonet takes the side of Massachuse.
| and New Hampshire in '99-neets the allegations o
those "who have denied or doubted the supremacy OF
the judicial power Of the u. States"-and aAirms thai
they have not ",ufcientiy advered to the utter in
efficiency Of supremacy in law of the land wiibou,
supremacy in the exposition and execution of the Ia
nor to the destruction Of all equipoise between the Fed
eral Government and the State Governments it, whilst
the functonaries OF the Federal Government are direct
y or indirectly elected by and responsible 10 the States
and the funconsres Of the States in their appoint.
ment and responsibility wholly independent Of the Unit.
ed States constitutional control Of any sort belonged
TO the United States the Siates"-He then pro-
ceeeds with the 0Tgunienftm db inconrenenti TO show
what would be the Ill consequences, such po,oer
,oers not gipen
Nj, Madison now tells what was meant in IN =
S9ib No. OF The F. dera-l Its true that in con
iroverses relating 10 the boundary between the two
0r sdciops The tribunal ~hich il ultimately 10 eide
s to be tstsblshed ar der the neral Governm
This tribunal, seems h the federal judiciary 4,
to be invested with ,upremscy--iis decision. ar.
mount and conclusive And the counter-,xposion. Of
the Report are 10 be abandoned, and Swallowed off al
most 10 nothing
We ough, TO b. particularly esuious, how we admit
the dTgumenfuDl alb in in erprs,ioy
ten Conuutons ltmsy justify slrnoH any interpolation
1t may tempt ao Ingenious mind to assume powers.
when mad before expressly denied-M II not in.
duce the Advocate, for instance 10 claim ic,,on
over the States themselves as DEFENDANT although
Mes'r' Msrihal aud Madison expressly discIsi,nsJ
IN the Virginia Convention, The right Of the federal
judges 10 drag State before its brilliant again ar,
we now to he told thst the Supreme ,ut shsll no am
thorzed to claim jurisdicicn 10 criminal ess.s ssbsn
the Report expressly denies II TO tbemi--If such a
suit from the want Of i-tbeu let us rather 20 win
old George Clinton to the foun'ain-h for ito Inc
Consu ion happily furnishes the means for remsdyins
the evil by sme ndfnent"
But admit the advantages Of supreme tribunal
IL the Supreme Court such one, we should
prefer, rs the Depository Of This Supremacy! Let us
examine lis Charter and Constitution.
Mode Of oppoinfment--Not selected by the parties
to the Completely the States themselves either by