The Arkansas banner., 1845-12-03

The succeeding paragraph in the same sec ton IS m harmony with this constructions It IS Tn these words: ssln all cases affecting Ambassadors, or other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have origi- nal jurisdiction. In all the other cases Tin- cludng eases of law and equity arising under the Constitution the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact: with such exceptions, and under such regulations as Congress shall make'D
 This paragraph, by expressly giving an appellate jurisdiction, in cases of law and equity arising under the Constitution, to faci. as well as to law; clearly excludes criminal cases, where the trial by jury is secured; be- cause the fact in such cases, is not subject of appeal. And, although the appeal is liable 10 such exceptions and regulations as Congress may adopt, yet it is not 10 be supposed that an exception of all criminal cases could be contemplated; as well accause d discretion in Congress to make or omit the exception would be improper, as because it would have been unnecessary. The exception could as easily have been made by the Constitution it. self, as referred to the Congress.
 Once more: the amendment last added 10 the Consultation. deserves attention as throw in light on this subject. sThe Judicial pow CT of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, com meneed or prosecuted against one of the Uni- ted States, by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign power" As it will not be pretended thatsany criminal proceeding could take place against State, the terms law or equity, must be understood as appropriate 10 civil, in exclusion of crimi- nal cases.
 From these considerations, it is evident that this part of the Constitution, even if 1t could be applied at all the purpose for which Ii has been cited, would not include any ca ses whatever of a criminal nature; and con- sequentlv would not authorize the inference from it, that the Judicial authority extends 10 o8enees against the common law, as offences against the common law, as offences arising under the Constitution.
 IL is further to be considered, that even if this part of the Constitution could be strained into an application 10 every common law case, criminal as well as civil, 1t could have no effect in juslifying the Sedtion Act, which is an act of legislative power; and il is the judicial power only of which the extent is defined in this part of the Constitution. There are two passages in the Constitution, in which description of the law of the Uni ted States is found. The first contained iii Art. HI. Sec.3, in the words following: .sThis Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made. under this authority' The second is con- ained in the second paragraph of Article VI. as follows: "Fhis Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made i'll pursuance thereof and all treaties made or which'shall be made, under the authority ot the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.' The first of these descriptions was meant as guide to the Judges of the several States. Both of them consist of all enumeration, which was evidently meant to be precise and complete. If the common law had been understood to be a law of the United States, it is not possible to assign a satisfactory reason why t was not expressed in the enumeration.
 In aid of these objections, the difficulties and confusion inseparable from construc- tive introduction of the common law, would afford powerful reasons against il.
 IL Is the common law with, or without the British Statutes.
 If without the Statutory amendments, the vices of the code would be iasnPPoriable.
 If with these amendments, what period is to be fixed for limiting the British authority over our laws?
 Is it to be the date of the eldest or the youngest of the colonies'
 Or are the dates thrown together, and a medium deduced3
 Oris cur independence to be taken fer the datc3
 Is, again, regard to be had to the various changes ill the common law made by the To- cal codes of America?
 Is regard to be had to such changes, sub sequent, as well as prior 10 the establishment of the Constitution
 Is regard to be had to future, as we'll as past changes?
 Is the law to be different in every State, as differently modified by its code; or are the modidcations of any particular State to be ap- piled to all?
 And on the latter suppositlon, whcl among the State codes form the standard.
 Questions of this sort might be multiplied with as much ease as there would be dlilicul ty i'll answering them.
 These consequences flowing from the pro posed construction, furnish other objections equally conclusive; unless the text were per emtory in its meaning, and consistent witl |, ,Ft
 These consequences may be in relation tC the legislative authority of the United States to the executive authority; to the Judieia authority; and to the Government oi the sey eraI States.
 If 1t be understood that the common Ia" is established by the Constitution, 1t folio w' that no part of the law can be altered by th' Legislature; such of the statutes already pas sed as may be repugnant theteto, would o' nullifed, particularly the sSediiion Act" It sell, which boasts of being melioration o the common law; and the whole code, wlti all it's incongruities, barbarisms, and bloody maxims, would be inviolably sadded on ;h' good people of inc United States. Shonld this consequence be rejected, ant the common law be held, like other laws liable to revision and alteration, by the all thoritv of Congress, 1t then follows that tn a,,thDr;tf- of C0nrress is cn-axtensive wit