Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-03-22

The denial OF tho Jurisdiction Of the cour, ON ,i.s rs,
81 the Executive, We believe to be In sccorisnce with
ne O. iooos OF large majority Of The people Of the
state. And w so'-bn'y h~lev-d al,o. that thes-
snnp'ion- By the court have tendency adverse IN the
"trpeuy OF the Unon. than u can coun
oaaoe- by all can 10, IN national sense, preserve
peace bstwesu be sts. But, II entertaining these
views The state o. New York under strong desire to
preserve the public tranquility and by all p.sceable
means u project her righ lar obeys the Of
the court appear aud protest against its riehf nj
risd,cto, and IL overruied on tina, point the cour,
proceeds to decision the merits willis, our an.
peasanc-, under protest. will motif acsived b.
sdered in any sense waiver OF RICH, the part of IN.
sac, 1, viii all nd the strong OF respect for
The constituted an no iies aud ermina,io, to for.
bsar TO the last pant OF torbearance.
We are happy that this subj ct has b,.n pre ed
mus ably au1 FULLY, before the l-gil aud the peo.
pis; particularly as has b,en the topic Of the groses
through journals whose wilfui per-
versions IN respect are only eqnsed by their
'osi ignorsnce. might b. considered singular ip apv
o'her than the journals to which refer, that gard
70. me nters' and rights OF the state, II not just
prize, should not restrain them from iudui geuce IN
attacks not only upon is sovereignty aud in the erimi.
nston Il its authorities for the of exa ng over
judicial power through judicil assump ions. but in
admissions, which IT they could have the least weight
go 70 show us in the wrong upon the merits of a cues.
oon OF great magnitude a least to our chief maritime
city, now ard long III Course OF iitis Atom with
h''ar state. ALBANY Argus,
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY-U STATES,
SUPREME COURT
Message OF The Govern made to the Legislature yes
t-rday.
To the Legislature.
Gen,smsn--t consider II my duty to lay tef,re YOU
mo accompanying coninuu caon from tie ATTORNEY
u p-'s Gone :ning enc VITA NJ J.r..v
INC n'tsr to wh oh relates, derives much Of ito i'm.
er'nce from the sr,"ns s.suusd nv the Judge. of the
Supre ne Cpur, - he Ued SAFES with ssrd ~ On. ir
powers; an feel bound to present you nv viz s o.
~ su lec, III no course VIII oh &. ell imoel.d
- itsard 10 the interess and honor Of the state q
'ur'u unn,. You .hill think proper 10 give differ
en direction.
a. You are apprised by the accompanying papers, and
NOSE which have preceded them, from the source
OF the several steps taken by the State of New
compel our appearance before the national judiciary to
contest with her the question OF SOVEREIGNTY over
portion OF the waters OF the Hudson river IL seems
To be mere question of sovereignty over the waters
inasmuch as New Jersey admits in her bill of com
PANT, mat whatever right she may have had to the
islands, those rights have been lost by adverse possess
sion and the lapse OF time.
The Attorney General, with my sanction has hitherto
declined to appear in court, and respond the COM
p'aH' withou intending any disrespect that high
tribunal and IN manner, which, trust preclutes the
imputd'lon OF such motive. His refusal 10 appear
was grounded upon the belief, that the has not
oeen invested with the power take cognizance of or
gihai siiits where state is made defendant party-I
ne reasons Tor this opinion fully detailed by
me Attorney General, but may be succinctly stated as
follows: "
l. II was not designed, by the constitution TO con-
Ter mat power on the court until Congress had Iegis
ated upon IT, and declared ,ohdt controversies
states were proper to be entertained by the court and
what should he the mode OF proceeding. The consti
tuition is silent in regard both of these matters
strong argument in favor OF this construction is afford
ell by mat clause in the constitutions which after emu
merating the powers OF Congress, adds "To make all
laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrvng
into execution the foregoing powers and all other nom
FRS vested ny the constitution in the government OF the
United States, or IN amy department officer thereof"
4 That Congress had passed laws for those pur.
poses r
cher proceedings in all other than those where
a state was defendant. This was a practical cons,ruc
uon OF the constitution and showed ther opinion that
legislation was necessary to enable the court TO pro-
cecil And by negecing TO provide sp.ci6caIIv for
proceedings in controversies between states thew indi
Gated tn opinion that the time had not arrived whsn
1t would be proper for the entertain such suits
he meaning Of congress is most distinctly marked bv
the wording OF the judiciary grants to the court
me power 10 issue certain writs; aud further, 'all
oher writs not specially provided for by statute which
may We necessary for the of their respective
jurisdictions and agreeable to the principles and usa-
gts td'o' now as no mode of proceeding against
sovereign state is known TO the common law il would
seem 10 be fair conclusion, that Congress designed
by precise I'd uneqnvoca language TO exclude an i'm.
pication that the power TO proceed ayains, s,ta vas
gr anted by the act
3. Although the court has frequently attempted to
exercise this power by entertaining against states
and summoning mem TO appear and answer, no state |
has ever obeyed their summons; thereby virtually de-
nyng the power of the court.
A. Several attempts have been made by the states to
prevail upon Congress to pass laws for this object; but
ey nave uniformly refused TO vest this power in the
court Two OF these attempts made in 1922 and 1928
are detailed in several OF the reports of the Attorney
General.
B. The State of New Jersey has impiedv admitted
The want oil power in the court by her ATTEMPT to OBJ
tain the passage OF law in 1922 and by Proposition
made through her commissioners to the commissioners
on the par OF this State in 1927, to submit this conro-
Versy 10 the supreme court impartial tribunal TO
arbrate between the parties.
Taking the foregoing vie of the subject I did not
consider myself justified in permitting the state TO be
represented as party defendant before a tribunal
winch had no right TO exercise authority over us and
which confidently hoped would, on review of lis
own powers, come TO that conclusion.
fut the matter mas now assn ID aspect. The
Jec differently, least, disposed TO assume the
Jurls lotion on pare case.
The ground upon which it supposed that the Cour,
claims cognz 'nce OF the controversy, are,
l. That ample power is given them by that clause
OF the Cons tuition. which orains that The judicial
power shall extend To controversies between two or
more States" That having the power the means of
exercising II incidental; and that they nav by rules
oil Court, prescribe he forms of proceeding
.. That the proceedings in suits before that Court |
prescribed by statute, applicable TO cases where
> ate Is defendant AID that, therefore, Congress has
legslated on the subject; and
81 That the decisions o. that Court have been uni
form IN all cases which have before IT, and SUP.
port the authority Of the curt.
we nave now reached point in the progress Of this
Igaton where the iulure action of the state should be
determined upon with delberation, and governed by
Que sense oil all the high responsibilities resting upon
as citizens OF the United ates and members Of cor
porate state sovereignty. This State can never forget
mat she Is member OF the union, and las a large
hill ul,A IL