Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1831-02-01

good behavior; their compensation cannot be dimin. !
shed during their continuance in Office; and made
liable to be iu.peached and removed trcr, Office by
the Senate of the United States. Such ihc
and Judges that the constitution invested with the
jurisdiction of all ''othcr beforcmenourd'' in
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 one of all these requisites characterize
State courts judges. The State courts are not
established by Congress; the State Judges do not
ceive their appointments from the President by and
with tn" advice and consent of the Senate; they hold
their Offices not necessarily during good behavior,
but by such tenure the States shall choose; their
compensation may be diminished at the pleasure Of
the States and they not responsible TO- or liable
to be impeached before the Senate of the United
States
The committee are aware that, since the able aud
unan werable arguments the twemty-fifth sion
in the Supreme Court OF Virginia, the advocates of
federal power have assumed the position, that the
right of appeal is claimed for the federal court on
The ground that The CASE arises under the laws,
ties, and constitution of the United States arl not
on the ground that tho State tribunal is inferior
one, from which wit of would lie. The natural
result of this will be- that, the position true
will prose too Much IF the NATURE of the CASE he
the only ground of jurisdiction will it authorize
the Supreme Court TO issue citation wit of
to c1urt OF England France, the pretext that
some one OF the questions under treaty ofthe
United States? a judicial tribunal of Of those
places IS not more independent of the federal court
than IS State court, If the character of the
be the only criterion authority for federal juris
dic'ion. Will it ne said that the right of jurisdiction
IS limited by the power to enforce the mandates Of
the court This being admitted will not vary the
result OF the present question. The federal courts
nave the same RICH, 30 issue mandamus prohibition
or process CT contempt to foreign judge, if the
nature OF the case give rs',iction it has
stale Judge; 1t has also precisely the power &c
execute it, 1t the right existed in the first case tc
issue and to execute process, the Supreme Court
would virtually be invested with the power of de-
cianS war; IT IN the latter case that will have
me power 10 blot out from the map any State oil
til" Hn"A. Il - ':-".l-nry process
to the legislative, and judicial authorities of State
be admit ed to belong to the federal court under
the constitution, the correlatve obligation on these
authorities tn obey, and the rightf power to enforce
1t, are obvious and necessary sequents The fedora
court, under these admitted principles, will have
+ The power to prohibit State legislation by wrts
injunction to sequestrate State treasures, and tc
inprison State unctonaries, whether governors, iudg
es, or State legislatures, in body. indeed the
9ower will not stop here; the reasoning will
tam power III the federal court attach and i'm
prison the President and both Houses of Congress
The power by citation or writ of error take
aiter Judgment, from q State court and to remove
II, Tor final determination, to the Supreme Federal
curt Is much greater outrage the fundamen
tai Pr,nelples OF theoretical and practical liberty, a.
established here than the odous writ of QUO WARREN
To, as 1T was used in England by tyrannical king t.
destroy the rights of corporations. The end and am
III both similar; in England it was to make
corporations subscrvien the kngy pleasure; here
TO make States subservent to federal extrava gancs
, and ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
u.s. That the action OF the federal government
oy the repeal OF The twentyffh section 49, tina
lis whoeEome operations will be Although
ntee will not acknowledge that such would
consequence yet may be admitted for the sake argument
without changing the result.
The committee believe that the imperative duty Of Con
gess to repeal without delay any ac in contraventior
81 me constitution, be the consequences they may
Congress had no power pass laws they null and
Vo ana ought not 10 remain the book
really necessary the that created the
VIII aer H. Necessity and experiences the pleas of th
tyan amendment thu dictate of the BY pursuing
tne former course we ample the constitutions
ing the latter we go back the people, original
1t has also been urged branch of argument, that the
~o' SECTION IS indispensable to that supremacy the fedora
court winch required preserve the peace country
WIN ioresn powers and 10 render uniform all judgments
the G"c ne ansTeI to iese objections to the repeal
~" scion 'e committee believe 70 be full and perfect III
he case oil Hunter Martin and prefer presenting in the
language OF the able Judge who delivered IT.
81 have said that this controlling power was not essential Ia
preserve HE peace OF re nation Without going
6e'aons or auihoFiies the subject, sufficient renal.
, me american people nave decided that
oece 20 orelgn nations to have tseir decided
amendment to the constitution by which the jurisdiction of the
eera courts prohibited to brought against States by
ossn citizens or subjects this undoub,ed
! ana has never been complained Of
since the adoption of that amendment, election
suns against the States and those now be brought in
he states courts in exclusion Of every other that
oens parties might perhaps be plausibIy urged that the
Judges oil the state courts consider
mat this declaration by the American people, and which has
never excited foreign nations has nut down the
noten now IN question 1t has settled question forever
thai of foreign nations that the State
udiclares should finally decide causes elected to ho
brought therein by their subjects consequently
thrown the only foundation which whole
Of the twe"yfh of judicial act has been supposed
10 TT
That Petsnce is the only which the power in ques
non could be attempted nc justified of rendering
unota all Judgments IN the of treaties still tenable
ana even not attained by the actual provisions e judicial
Co o .n act the appeal equally hes to the Supreme
exists, and 's denied where is 1UG5t:iug.
Tor example, the supreme of the United States has
decided against treaty. supreme court of State de
cdes the same way, there this Uniformity already exists and
yeI Inc appeal allowed If the other hand former
court decides against treaty. and the latter in favor of
uniformity Is wanting, yet the appeal Is denied"
ne oowng is the unanimous opinion Of the supreme
OF Virginia, 10 the above stated case.
Inc court is unanimously Of opinion the appellate
power OF Inc supreme of the United States
extend 70 ms court under sound Of cous
ion OF the United States al much of the 25lh section of
e at OF Congress TO establish the Judicial power the Uni
ed oatc as extends the appellate judicial power of tine SUI
Pe o 10 tins court rs not III Of the constitution
oI ue Oed states: and thai the writ of case
nproV"niy allowed under the authority that ac; that the
poeeds thereon in the supreme court were coraBt non
JHd'csn ~ relation 10 this court that Obedience to its man
date be declined ty this court,
committee viii present one judicial opinion of
court of the United States
C supreme court OF the commonwealth of PENNSYLVANIA
ID me case Of The commonwealth CobbcI olemnly aud
uNo refused 10 permit the defendant who was an alien
v" remove cause IN which nc by the State IN its