Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1833-02-07

/
late jurisdiction. IL I'll, himself TOO much ex.
hansied To renda case 81 two TO which be d. sired
- c6ll the attention Of Tho Senate But he 10 arb
20 content himself with dfr reference TO the casa
u Na'lin W Hunters lessee, IN lst Whenion y.
~, on5 the case Of cnhons - the STATE Of Viz
Rniai oth Wheaton r. ga, where ihis point had
b'eh decided. " appellate jurisdiction be given,
NE original oood not be desired All the resi-
dunn OF jurisdiction remaining AFTER tho original
lufsdletnn given in specified eases, TO The upreme
Cont might be exercised IL any way by the nfc-
r'r Courts that Congress might direct. These
observations were applicable to the third section
"' The bull Which also provides for tho extension Of
J"''cini jurisdiction 10y allowing the rany Or Off.
''' OF lhe Siotes spsd IN the States Court for ex-
eeut'n9 The laws OF the Union TO fsmorc the case
to the Circuit Court. II gives he right 10 remova
|" any time ttforc trinl but not after Judgment had
po'n gwen, AMI thus affects IN no way the dignity
Of the Sinte ir'bunnls Whether 10 criminal or in
cvli cases, II gives ,ha right Of removal. Has
Congress this power in efinnnn cases He
would answer the question IN the oii,r,nstive Coz
eress had The power 10 give this tight in criminal
rs well rs III c,vil cases. because Ito second sec
ton OF the third article II he Constitution Speaks
OF all cqsts IN lar and equity and these COM
pre'enslse terms cover oil. lie referred 10 tho
case OF Matthews " Zane, iih Crnneh page 3so,
which decides that, If Two cilizens of The same
St''e IN suit IN their State court, claim title ui-
der the same act of Congress, the Supreme Cou,s
has nm appellate Jurisdiction, to revise and correct
the decision OF that count.
This decision was founded uron the princip'c
that the Sd art Of the constitution, consd,red in
connection with the Judiciary net OF 50 would NOT
give II more extensive construction Than il meri-
ted and that Tie grent Obj eet was, 10 render uni
form the construction ofthe laws Of the United
States, aud decslons und,f them, upon the rights
Of individuals mud N such euae II was entirely i'm
material thu both parties were citizens VI the salno
StGtc.
1t was admitted by Mr. llnper, Counsel FOR
Defendant in error tia, the cxrscise of jurisdiction
IN such case would be- unJoubtcd lit was ~
MAINTAIN The authority u he taws NJ hle Lrl.is!
States, against chcfoaebmeuta of the ,siate author
ties
The cauac IN the Constitution 10 which he had
adverel. reierg 10 the character oft!e controversy,
without fgatl 20 the parties the particular fetli
OF lba aetou. The object OF the still, and mol til,
tribunal determined the lursdioton. Was il y
hy the validity OF an aci Of Congress Thet
qneallpn determined the jurisdiction. Was IL IL
Try an Indictment for traasonl That question
determined hr jurisdiction. II WAS moro Decessa-
~ that this jurisdiction should be exiendod over
cr'u'nei lhan over civil cast1. II ii aas not ad-
mntcd tint ID" Federal Judiciary had lurIsd ciior
oyct etaind easos, lhen was nuIld ation ratified
lnj 9eal1d forever ior State would have nolLiny
more to do than to declare an net a felony or mis-
dcncanor, 10 nullfy all the Iswg ofthe Union.
There wete NUN pre- udcHs pfejudieos pecu-
liar to particular States which, under any other
view, would throw all Jurisdiction into the Stats
tribunals.
10 would put cnse 10 The southern gentlemen,
ty way al a',tation. II was oil Wiich they
would ioe disposed to resent and ono 10 which ho
felt a topuRnanco to refer but be would take II az
Illustrative OF the opinions he had thrown Out.
here waG 10 DO found III the constitution clause
Winch wv, tho right to the owner of n anyet1
pursue hfll from one State to another and to AXE
I'm #helager he may dnd him. Now il was
huoen tfat there was IN some States strong fee
li ihls subject, and hat particularly was this
scnsbiiiy TO be found IN the S;sle OF PenDsylya.
Mn Wdcfe II carried 10 a very great cxtent In
hlrh party times he would suppose that party
~ FcansylVania rallied on this great principle.
Prnnsyly snia was covered over with jealous and
highly respectable abolition societies. lie would
suppose that Pennsylvania eafred these icengsto
such an extent, as to pass Ia1 to Dullify tins
clause IN the constitution He stated that he had,
in the jndclnl station which he had occupied, had
cases broug ll beioe hui for decision, in which he
had fell II to be- o8,remely difficult 10 keep down
tbs feeling, II had been even commended before
bim, tia, the pursuit of the sieve by his owner into
That STATE, was an unconstitutional act. He would
suppose that Pennsylvania was To pass u law, de-
ciauns lhnt the Ioomen, slave sets foot On her
SOIL he shall be at once elevated To the rauk and
privileges Of freemnn, and that thus she should
nuiy The clause IN tho constitution on this point.
4, would be deemed very hard by the Southern
gentlemen lba, they could not Try the qucstion af
the consttulionolity of that law before the sa-
prone { curt And ifthe State of Pennsylvania
were 10 pass law Imposing fine Of 900 dol
lars and five years imprisonment, OH any owner ofa
Shave found IN pursuit of HIM, and that her Jurors
and Judges arc all sworn 10 regard this law he
would ask whether the United States Courts could
no, have jurisdiction in this matter The power
ui the Judiciary would DC entirely nugatofy fH
could be oyaded by throwing the into the form
of a c,i.r,,nal proceeding He referred The Senate
to the cases of the United States Vs. Moore, Sd
Cranch p l53 where it was admitted tina, Con-
gross might give the power and 10 that OF Martin
VS. Hunters Lessee, l Wheaton p. 1913, where
was admitted that criminal are the strongest ca.
SEES.
The fourth section Of tie bill was merely mat
tee Of form There was no constitutional principle
involved in il, |, only authorized the Courts Of the
United States TO supply the want OF copy Of the
record 1t was in.enlcd 20 obvlste the dincuay
which was likely to arise from the novel proviaion
confirmed in the 9th section OF the Replesin Law
of South Carolina, which makes it penal in tho
Clerk TO furnish such record, This provision did
no, NEEDLE with the penalty OF the Clerk OF tho
state Court, but commended itself with providins
| means to supply the deficiency.
| The fifth section authorizes the employment o.
military force under extraordinary circumstances
too powerful to overcome without such asency,and
to be preceded by the Proclamation OF the Pres.-
dent What he had already said had reference al