Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-02-03


OF the same opinion aud pass law for the puni'hmsn,
OF the land officers Of the United States, who should
sell any Of The public lands within her limits. this
transfer Of property might bc.vrtually accomplished
by the repeal Of the 25h section OF the judicial act
Our land officers might then be severely punished, aud
thus prohibited by the Courts OF that State. from per-
forming their duly under the law If the Union, with
out the possibility OF redre in any constitutional or
legal form. la this manner, the tile OF the United
States to a vast domain. which has coat the nation ma
ny millions, and which justly belongs TO tue people OF
the several States, would be defeated or greatly i'm
paired.
Another Illustration might be introduced. Suppose
the Legislature OF Pannsy vana. being OF opinion ;ha
the charter OF the Bank OF the United Safes is
suionoi, were to declare II 10 DO nui'auce. and in
iict penalties upon all its officers for making discounts
or receiving dcposites. Should the Courts OF that
State carry such law into effect, with cut the 20 n
section, there would be appeal from their decson
and the Legislature and Courts OF single Safe might
thus PROSTATE institution established under the Con
sitution and laws Of the u ).
In all such cases, redress b. p-aceabiy OBJ
tanned in the ordinary administration Of Justice. wit
." error issuss from the Supreme Court, which finally
decides the question, whether the &C, OF Congress
constitutional not aud il they determine in the ar
hrms,ive the judgmen OF the State Court Is reversed
The laws ara thus substituted instead of arms an :
the STATES kept within their proper osb, by the u
tcial authority. BIT If no such appeal existed, them
upon the occurrence of cases OF this character, the
General Government would be compelled 10 determine
WHISTLER the Union should be dissolved, or whether
there Should be recurrence TO foce-au awful alter
native. watch We trust may never be presented. We
1
might result, from the abandonment Of the present. jrdi
cal syst,m They will strike every rejecting mind
II has OF late years been conended hat this section
oil the judicial act vas unconsu and that Con-
do not possess the power Of invesng the Supreme
Court with appellate jurisdiction, in any which
has en- hoaiy decided in IN Courts OF the States
IL has also been contended, that, If they do pcs
sessshis power, il does mo- extend TO in which
State is party. On this branch Of the question: we
would refer the House to thu very abl. conclusive
argument Of he Supreme Court of the United State.
in thu cases OF Martin Hunters lessee, Ost whea-
tn, 30I0 aud Cohens Us the Safe Of Virginia (6
Wheaton, 20 ~ by winch the sfT native of these pro
posii Ms il clearly esah he'd II may be proper, how
ever, that we should Ike iew obs tons pom This
part Of the question. Those who have d in favor
Of these 20 ons, assert hat he neral words of
Constitution, extending the judicial power of he u.
Moo Z" to all cases. in law aud equity" arising under
the CJns,'u ion and laws of the Uuited States ought
by constructions to be restricted to such cases in law
aud equity, may giuas in the Courts OF the U.
| mon. They would thus establish Limitation a, war
W IN the letter; and in our opinion, equity at wa
with the spirit o. the ins rument Had such been The
Intention OF the trainers oil the Constitution, ey well
knew in wha' language to express hat in eniio". Had
1t been their purIo'e 10 restrict the auing OF the
gene al language, which hey had us in the first
81 use oil the section, they could have done so with
much p'opriey in the second.
This clause, after providing "tha in all affecting
ambassadors other public ministers and consus and
those in which State shall be party, the Sup Court
shall have original jurisdiction, proceeds 10 declare
THAT In all the other aforementioned, the Sup
Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both law aud
an the Congress shall Make On the supposton conten
ded for il is wholly unaccounable that the trainers of
the Constitution did not limit the natural effect of the
words used in the rst clause by making the second
read "that, in all the other before noned a.
rising an the Inferior courts efthe UIted States sthe
supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction" But
no such restriction exists; and from the fair import
the words used in both clauses the Supreme Court pos
sess the Of finally deciding "a cases in law and
equity, arising under the Constitution the laws, and
the treaties OF the United States, no matter whether
they may have originated in a Federal or in State
court, and matter whether States or individuals be
the parties
But ii is our intention TO enter into protracteJ
constitutional argument upon the present OCCASION be-
cause this question has long since been at rest il any
constitutional question be considered as settled
in this country The Feieralst, which is now consider
ed textbook in regard TO the construction of the Con-
stuiion, and deservedy well from the grea mer
OF the work the high character of its authors is
clear and explicit this subject. After reasoning I'M.
on it at some length the author of the SD number of
that production arrives at the following concluson "o
conine therefore the general expressions which gave
appellate jurisdiction TO the Supreme Court TO appeals
from the subordinate Federal courts instead of allowing
their extension 10 the State courts, would be abridge
the latitude Of the terms in subversion. of the intent
contrary TO every sound rule of interpretation
The Federalist, it will be secoeced was written be-
tween the formation OF the Constitution and its adoption
by the States. Immediately alter its adoption Congres
by passing the 25th section of the Judicial act, now
sought to be repealed fully confirmed this construction
This appellate jurisdiction has since been exercis-
ed by the Supreme Court in great variety of cases.
and we not that the constituoDality of IFS
exercise has ever been questioned by the decision of
ny State court except in single instance, which did
not occur until the year 1915. And in that case
(Huner u.s. Fairax) the judgment of the Supreme
Court carried into effect according to the existing
law, without endangering the peace OF the country
The last topic to which would advert is the claim
which has been set up TO exempt the judgments obtain
ed by the States of this Unon before their own courts
in civil and criminal SUITS prosecuted in their name
from being reviewed by the Supreme Court of the u
Rited States upon writ Of Much stress has been
laid by those who sustain this claim, upon tie general
proposition, that sovereign independent State cannot
be sued, except by its But does this pro-
position apply in its extent to the States of this Union?
That is the question for discussion.
We have in this country an authority much higher
than that Of sovereign States IL the authority of the
sovereign people Of each State I'm their State conven-
tons they ratified the Constitution OF the u Staes and
so lar that Constitution has deprived the States of
ny oil the attributes OF sovereignty hey bound by it,
because such was the will OF the people. The Con.
sutuuon thus called into existence by the will Of the
people OF the several States, has declared itself and
the laws and treaties which should emanate from its
authority, 10 be "he supreme law Of tie land and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
thing in the Constitution laws Of any State TO the con-
trary Notwithstanding.
Why, then, should State, who has obtained iudg-
ment IN her courts against individual, in vlo-
aon OF this supreme Law OF the land" be protected
from having her Jude meDt reversed by the SUpTeme
Court Of the United Saie IL there aoy aaon Ell her
in the Constitution n justice why judgments
obtained by STATE in her own courts should be held
sacred, no with standing they violated the Constitution
and laws OF the Union, which would not apply at least
with equal force, in favor Of individual pIsinh! The
Constitution subjects the review of the Suprsm
Court all cases, in Law equity, arising under Itself or
inc laws OF The Union excerpts no case bearing hi