Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1833-02-01


of, and it he attempt to recapture them, ne IS
liable 10 fine of $4,000, and years imprl-
sonment. No such indictment is subject t" tra'
verse; that Is, the accused shall not cross IT; he
shall not DENY the facts alleged; he shall not
plead "nUt guilty;" This is the technical effect
Of refusing a traverse. But can the word be Ia
ken in that sense in Sauth Carolina? Perhaps
the word, as used in the Ordinance, has a. mean
ing peculiar tn the South.
Mr.. MILLER explained. The word hada Pc
culiar meaning in South Carolina. At the first
Court the accused could traverse, but he had no
right to continue the action. The Ordinance de.
med the right to the accused to continue The case
aftet the first term, except for cause shown
The Ordinance, in creating this misdemeanor'
merely applies to it the legal forms which IN that
State apply to all misdemeanors.
Mr.. wilkins. Ii was apparent mat the con-
stltuton of the Courts in South Carolina makes
it necessary TO give the revenue officers the right
to sue in the Federal Courts. Ii was not intend
ell to restrict this right 10 any amount IN conlro-
versv, nor to citizens Of other States. 1t falls
under the clause of the Constitution which gives
jurisdiction to the United States Courts in all
cases arising under the Constitution, Treaties,
and laws Of the United States. He would put q
case in a few words: Suppose The Collector OF
port of Suith Carolina is prosecuted, lie is
carried TO prison, or the capias in githernam is
issued against him. His property is carried of
and sold The case comes before the State Court
lie sets forth that, under the laws OF the United
States, he was obliged to do his duty. On the
other side, it is SAID that the laws OF the United
States had been nullfed, and the State laws
had taken their place. Out Of this issue springs
case provided for by the bill. Bat 1t is object.
ed that The case will arise under the State law
But. shape it winch way you may, the case arises
out of the Laws and Constitution of the United
States, and the judicial power extends to all cas-
ss iu law aud equity. 1t ought TO be so. There
ought to be judicial power co-extensve witt,
the power Of legislation, and cO.extensiye exc.
cutiye power. Without this c0ex,ens,e power.
legislation would be useless in a free govern
ment. NsitIrr domestic tranquility. unifor-
nifty OF rule, and decisions, can be secured witir-
out it,
1t may be said. Continued Mr.. " j that in
this way you overturn Safe legislation. and that
they ought to give their own direction to State
controversies. So they may, but let them not
come in collision with the Constitution and laws
of the Union. In every controversy within any
State. arising under State law, coming in COL
lisinn with the Constitution. or with law Of
the United States the Federal Courts have appel.
late jurisdiction He felt himself TOO much ex-
hausted to read a case or two To- which he de.ir-
ed to call The attention Of the Srnatr. But he
meant to ,:oa,ent himself with mere reference
to the case of Ma.tn vs.. Hunters lessee, in LIST
Wheaton, p. SD4, and the case of Cohens v. the
State of Virginia. 9th Wheaton, p. 264. where
this punt had had decided lfappe!a'e risdiction
be gwen, the O ginal could not b. de-. red. All
the rasiduum If jurisdiction remaining after the
original jurisdiction given in specified cases. to
the Supreme Court, might be exercised in any
way by the inferior Courts that Congress might
direct. These observations were applicable TO
the third section of the bill. which also prnvides
for the extension of judicial jurisdiction. BY al.
loving the party or officer of the U States sneI
in the Safe Court for executing the laws Of The
Union, to remoUe the case TO the Circuit Court.
|, gives the right to remove at any time before
trial. bur not after Judgment had been given. and
thus affects in no way the dignity of the State
tribunals. Whether in criminal or in civil cases.
it gives this right of removal. Has Congress
this power in criminal cases? lie would answer
the question in the affirmative. Congress had
the power to give this right in criminal as well
as in civil cases, because the second section Of
the third article of the Constitution. speaks of
- diI cases ~ fuO auu equity. duu 'Hese tOui'
ptehensive terms cover all. He referred to the
case Of Matthews VS.. Zane, 4ih Cranch, page
$50. which decides that, if two citizens of the
same State. in a suit in their State court.
claim title under the same act of Congress, the
Supreme Court has an appellate jurisdiction, to
revise and correct the decision of that court.
This decision was founded upon the principle
that the Sd art of the constitutiun considered in
connection with the Judiciary act of $50, would
not give it more extensive construction than it
meri,et; and that the great objec. was, TO render
uniform The construction of the laws Of the Uni.
ted States, and decisions under them upon the
rights of individuals; and in such case it was en-.
entirely immatera that both parties were citi-
Zens Of the same State
1t was admitted by Mr.. Harper. Counsel for
DEPENDENT in error, that the exercise of jursdic-
ton in such case would be undnubted il it was to
maintain the authority of the lars ofthe United
STATES. against entertainments Of the Stale au.
Moriiies
The clause in the Constitution to which he
had advprtet, refers to the character of the con-
troversv, without regard to the parties, or the
particular form of the action. The object of the