Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1831-02-01

good behavior; their compensation cannot be dm,n.
mned during their continuance in Office; aud are made
liable To be impcsch-d and removed from office by
the Senate OF the United States. Such the courts
and Judges that the constitution invested with the
jurisdiction OF all "Uthcr heiorementioned"
the second section of the third article OF that instru
ment, with the exception of two classes of cases
which Original jurisdiction is given TO the Supreme
Court. Not of all thes. requisites characterize
State courts or Judges. The State courts are not
established by Congress; the State Judges do not re-
ceve their appointments from the President by and
with III" advice and consent OF the Scntc they hold
t''eir Offices no, necessarily during good behavior,
but by such tenure the States Shall hoosc; their
compensation may be diminished u the pleasure of
the S'atcS and they responsible 20, or liable
10 b. impeachsG before IT,, Senate OF the United
States
The committee are aware, Chat. since the able ard
upan 'wcrabie arguments ON thr twcuU-frt section
IN the Supreme Court of Virginia the advocate. OF
fedora! power have assumed the position, that the
Tsht oi appeal Is claimed for the fedora, court OF
The ground that the under the laws, trea-
ues and constitution of the United States; and 40,
on the ground that th" State tribunal is an inferior
one from which wit o! error would lie. The natural
result o tins viii be, that, If the position be true it
w'I prov TOO much. II the NATURE ct the CASE nc
the only ground OF jurisdiction, will il not authorize
me Supreme Court To ISSu" citation wit OF crrCr
10 a court a.! England or France The prcteNt that
some one OF the IcStiOnS under treaty u!thc
United S,aeSi Judicial tribunal of one of those
PAGES Is not more independent OF the fcde.al court
usn Is state court, !: The character Of the
DC The only criterion authority for federal iuris
I'cton Wilt said that the righ of jurisdiction
IS united by the power tn enforce the mandates Of
'ne court this being al nitted vii. not vary t.,.
result OF the present question. he federal courts
nave The same right To issue a nsndanrus prohibition
'' process CT contempt 10 fcrCEn judge, if the
nature OF the case can give jar Scti0m i, has To
State JHdce IT has also precisely the same power to
execute IT. u :hc ri.; existed in tho first case 10
issue ana To 'N'cu'e process, the Supreme Court
would Virtually be invested with tn power OF de.
c2.nS wHT; fin the latter case, that court will have
the power IN blot ou, from the map any State of
inc Union. u the right II ISSUE mandatory process
1s.t.l
DC Admit ea 10 belong 10 the federal court under
The constitution, the correative obligation on these
authorities 70 obey, and the righttu power enforce
~ are OBVIOUS aud necessary scqucns. The federal
court uadcr these admitted principles, will have
me power 10 prohibit STAT legislation by writs of
inluncnon to seGurstrac Stdc treasures, and TO
impFSon State tunctjonarics, whether governors iud
IS, or State legislatures in body. lnlpcd the
power VIII not stop here; the reasoning viii sus
tam power IN the federal court t. attach and IN
rr'''" u'c president AMI both Houses OF Congress.
"e power by citation writ of error, take case
after Judgment, from State court, AMI to remove
~ ior Hnai determination, To the Supreme Federal
curt is much greater outrage the fundamel
XII principles OF theoretical and practical liberty As
established here than the cd Gus writ QUO WARREN.
TO as II was used III England by atyrannical king
HSs'Foy Tue rights OF corporations. The end and I'm
IN oo'A cases were similar; in En6an. IT make
corporations subscrvient TO the kiny pleasures here
20 make States subser7ent to federal extravaganza
and ACKNOWLEDGEMENT,
The last by the advocates Of federal mower
% that the action OF the federal government IL DE so crippled
- ~,
us whoeaomc operations will be Although the com
ee VIII not acknowledge would tie ire necessary
consequence admitted for the sake o. arGru
without Changing the result
line committee believe that the imperative du,y Of Con.
eess repeal without delay, any OF is cnaavcnpn
Of the constitution, be the consequences what they may If
CoasgSs had no power pass laws they nu and
tesy necessary he power thar created c
VIII amend H. Necessity and experience The pleas of the
yan amendment the OF the constitution y pursuing
Inc former course, tramp!e upon the constitutions by follow
nag Tie latter we so back to the people, The original
has also been urged branch Ills argument that the
ON section IS Indispensable that supremacy the federal
CoI! winch required preserve peace uniry
wan oei-n power and TO render all judgments
u," cases Ihe answer 10 these ojgcons repeal
ts LIN section, the committee believe be G perfect
t"e case Of Hunter Martin. aud prefer presenting 1t ~ s
language Of the able Judge who delivered It
Il haze said J l;'is yDliru.g uDrT ,-as 'g y=-ul' n
alterations or auta,,s on ie ,i,r IT. ,' ~ ~, -,
ld Tie A"c.ean people have decided jGI cause Of
exclusively aud naIy decided by The State ,,,a M gI
nendneni to the by the jurisdiction az the
federal courts IS prohibited suits brought against by
foreign citizens subjects this construction is most undoutcd
and has never been complained o.
S!ncc the adoption Of thar amendment the erection O!
jurisdiction has been entirely taken foreigners 10 all
suns against the Stale and those brought IN
cases in which from the circu,sanccs oI , s,,cs ,,
brnS parties, might perhaps pausJ!y urged that the
JNHSrs oi inc STATE courts free consider
ia this declaration by the American pcools and vbc ba
never excited foreign nations, put down tho
notion no" III question II has settled tic question forever
jodciades should finally decide tic causes elected TO be
Drought therein by their subjects It has consequently
thrown the only foundation Which whole supesrucure
% We twenty mn section Of the judicial has supposed
-
That pe,cuce is die only one n, which the p,,vcr III opc.
non could b; attempted be justified That of endcns
""orH all judgments ~ the Of treaties still les, cuabc
ana sven not attained by the actual provisions tic judicial
A Jh1et that act the appeal equally Supreme
Court OF The United States where such uniformity already
exists aud Is dDtcd where 1t 5 caa'iHg
al Too example, the supreme the United States has
-ccidcn against treaty, aud the supreme Of
ccs the same way there this uniformity already exists and
% her h4utit Tho firm
cHHi decides against treaty, and the latter la - this
uniformity Is va iinE, yet iHC appeal Is denied"
ne IJHowiug o. the unanimous opinion tc supreme -uui
Of yHgua, 10 the above stated case.
"lhe court IS unanimously Of opinion, that tho appclire
power o the surrrmc court Of tbs United S'a'r does
ch' 10 Tins cot, under sound ul the cunsi-
yn "i iG Ounci States. that much of the 2Ji
l"c act 81 CUUg,e5 10 establish s judicial POKER
r" S'n'- 81 eN"nIs The appellate Judicial power Of the
P'ne court ~ ths Csu not 30 pur,u5ucc %! the constitution
g" u" United Stairs and u't hs of thu
hpfovt~uy allowed under Size Authority act that
proceeding, thereon u Use supreme court
.'hrna 3" ra'iouio this count aud that obedience It's
date be d,gl'ugd hy this Cougt'
Tic committee w present Judicial opinion cf
tIr I..