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

embraces those causes in which the validity of State
laws cont-tsd, upon tho principle that they violate
the Constitution the laws, or the treaties OF the Untsd
Stste', aud have, thetoioe been enacted in opposition
to the au hcri'y OF the supreme law Of tho land"
Cases OF this description have been OF frequent occur
renee. IL has often been drawn into question before
The State Courts, whether Safe laws did did no,
violate the Constu ion OF the U.i,ed States. /,
heD essential tn the preservation OF the General Co.
v-rnment, uhathc Supreme Court OF the United States
should possess the power Of viewing thu
OF State in all wherein they have estab
shed the validity OF State law, in opposition to the
Constitution and laws of the United Slater!
The third class differs essentially from each Of the
two hr,t In the cases embraced by il, nei,he~ the
validity Of acts Of Congress OF ncr OF State
laws, called in question. Tnis clause OF the Is
section merely coniers up the Supreme Court the
pcate jurisdiction OF constituting the Constitu ion laws
and treaties ui the United States, when their pro,ec
ton has been invoked by parties to suits before the
State courts, aud has been denied by their decision
without the exercise OF this power, in cases original,
ing IN the State courts tho Constitution, laws and
treaties OF the United States would be left 10 he inay
construed aud executed by judicial power which
Congress has no control.
ms section does not interfere, either directly in
directly, with the Independence OF the State courts
hnally deciding all arising exclusively nndsr their
own constitution aud laws. IL lsavss them in the en-
joyment OF every power which they possessed before
! the ioption OF the Federal Constitution. 1t M rely
declares, that hat Constitution established nav
form OF Government, and consequently gave to the
State Courts the power oil consrung in cerain cases,
the Constitution the laws, aud ths treaties OF the Unit
cd States, the Supreme Court OF the United Safe.
should. to this limited extent, but not beyond l., po.-
sess the power OF reviewing heir Judgments. The
section itself declares that other shall bs a..
signed regarded asa ground vi reversal 10 any such
case as sforesai than such appear. on IN face OF
the rec I'd and Immediately respects the before men.
toned questions Of udldy construction ofthe said
Constitution treaties, statutes, commissions or au.
fhorittes IN dispute.
The minority OF The omtniteo will now proceed 10
advance. in more distinct form, few OF the rsa ons
~ hy in fh,tr n,trt lh.
ought no; to be repealed.
And in the bret place, ought to ba the chief Oh.
lect oil all Cove nnens to protsct Individual rigt t.
In almost every case, involving a question be,ors a
state ccur under this section OF the judiciary ac IN
ConStituion laws, or 'reates Of the United States are
'n'etposed Tor the protection Of indivi iuas. Does a
citizen invoke tha protection OF act OF Congress, up.
On trial before State Court which decides that
10 be unconstitutional and void, and. renders jud, men
against him. this section secure, his right of appeal
from such d-csioa TO the Supreme Court OF the
United States.
When a citizen in a snit before State court. con.
tends that Stte law by which h is assard VIC.
lauoa OF the nsli uton of the United States, and
tberefora void, G his plea shoud DO overrue1) he
may Nring this question he!ors the Supreme Court Of
The United Statss.
10 like manner, whsn an individual claim, any riah,
before State Court unlsr the Cons ituion laws OF
III, Urilej States, AMI the decision hi. claim
he may appeal to the Supreme Court of ia. United
States.
II this section repealed oil these mpor ant ind.
vidnai rights would be forfcied.
The history OF our country abundan'iy provss TIA,
in iividual States are liable 10 high exciteuents ami
srors pr,jndiceI The Judges OF these States would
be 'rs or less than m N, il th-y iii participate in
the feelings OF the comm nifty by ~ ch they -ur
roun'e'. Und-r the iohuencs OF th.se excitemenis
nd;viras, whose right. happ-n TO clash with the pre-
vailing feeling of the Safe would have but der
hope o. obtaniDg Justice before State tribunal Th re
would b. the 20 and the iausnce o! the State so
vsrrigniy thu sii', aai an individual who had
mads himself obnoxious TO popular odium on the other.
In such cases, shi the liberty or the property of
ciizan far es he claims the under the Consti-
tuition laws OF the United Safes to DO dscded be.
tore State court, without an appeal to tie Supreme
Court OF the U"i.-d ate, On wfon the consru ion
OF this very Constitution and these laws has bee con-
f-Trsd in all cases. by the Cor suiutiou!
The Supreme Court, considering the elevated cha.
rae'er its judges, AMI that they reside in pars
the Union remote from each her, never be liasl-
to local -xcements aud local prejudIces To that tri-
bnnh ouF ctzsns can appeal wi safety and with con.
Hence Gas long the 25h section OF III judicial act
hall remain upon the statute hook whenever thew
consider thai their riggs, under the Con ti,ution and
laws OF the United States, have bscn violated by
ate court. Besides. shouid this s=ctitn be repealed
1t would produce denial of equal justice to parties
drawing in question the Constitution law, or treaties
of the United States. In civil action, the plaintiff
might then bring his action in Federal or Slate court
as he pea'ed, and as he thought be should be mes
likely ID; whilst the defendant would have M
option, but must abide the consequences, without the
power OF removing the cause from State into Fede.
raj corrt. except in the singe of his b,ng sued
ont Of the district in which he r,sles; and this, al
though he might have conclu-ive fence ind n n.
Constitution and laws OF the United States.
Another reason Tor preserving thu sect on IT, tha.
without u, there would be no uifIrm ty 10 the con-
struciion and admin traton OF tho Con .titution law,
and treaties Of The United States II the courts of "a
distinct sovereign States each possess the power in
the lat resort, Of deciding upon he Con itutop and
laws OF the United States, their con Traction may he
different in every State OF the Union. That act of Con-
gress, which conforms to the Cont ~ ion of the II
States, and is valid in the opinion of The Supr,me
Court OF Georgia, may be a direct viola ion of the
provisions OF that instrument AMI he void in TIE uJg-
meDt OF the Supreme Court of South Carolina A
State law i'll Virginia, might in this manner be d.cIar
ed constitutional, whilst the zane, if passed by the
lie gslatu'e Of Pennsylvania, would be void Nav
what would b, s IN absurd law or treaty of the
United Sta!eI, with foreign ma ion admitted IN he
coDs uonay made, might secure rights 10 the ci,i-
OF State which would be denied to those Of
another. Although the same Constitution and laws
govefn tn Union, yet the rights acquired under them
would vary with every degree of latitude. Surely
the trainers OF the Constitution would have left thar
work incomplete, had they established No common
tribunal to dec3 its own construction, and that of tn.
laws and treaties made under It's authority Thew are
not liable TO :hls charge because ihsy have given
press power n the Judiciary Of the Union over all
cases, in Jaw and equity, arising und-r this Constu
ton, the laws of the u s. and treaties made or which
shall be made, under their authority"
TIE first Congress of the United States have, TO a
considerable extent, carried this power no execution
by thu passage OF the Judicial act, and it contains DO
provision more important than tbs 25.h section
rms sc c'ioD ought not to be repealed because, in
the opinion OF tho minority of the COMMITTEES on the
Judci'ry its repeal would seriously enjanger the ex.
isence Of this Union The chief evil which existed
under the old confederation, and which gave birth TO
the present Constitution was that the Govern
ment could not act directly upon the peops but ONLY
by reputation upon sovereign States The consequence
was that the s. ates either obsysd or dsobsygd these
re- az hav hl he a.