The Arkansas banner., 1845-12-03
MIR. MADISON'S REPORT
 ON THE VIRGI.N'E,a RESOLUTIONS. (Concluded.)
VIRGINIA HoUsE OF DELEGATES.
Session of l799-1800.


 share ofthe public burdens, and were regard ell as an indemnifeaton of it's advances for the other parts. As long as this regulating power was confined to the two objects 0l conyenien- cy and equity, it was not complained Of, nor much inquired into But, no sooner was it perverted 10 the selfish views ot the party assuming it, than the injured parties began to feel and to reflect and the moment the claim to direct and indefinite power was ingralted on the precedent of the regulating power, the whole charm was dissolved, and every eye opened 10 the usurpation. The assertion by Great Britain oia power to make laws for the other members of the empire in aH cases tchaiSosrer, ended in the discovery, that she had 9 right to make laws for them iHao cases 7cAats0eter.
 Such beiag the ground of our Revolution, no support nor color can be drawn from il, for the doctrine that the common law is biud- ing on these States as one society. The doc trine, on the contrary, is evidently repugnant to the fundamental principle of the ReyoIu- lion.
 The articles of confederation are the next source of information on this subject.
 In the interval between the commence ment of the Rcvolution and the ratification of these articles, the nature and extent of the Unlon was determined by the circumstances of the crisis, rather than by any accurate de- lineation of the general authority. It will not be alleged, that the '.common law could have any legitimate birth as a law of the U. States during that state of things If it came as such into existence at all, the character of confederation must have been is parent.
 Here, again, however, is pretcnsions are absolutely destitute of foundation. This in strument does not contain a sentence or a syllable that can be tortured into a eoQute- nance of the idea, that the parties to it were, with respect 10 the objects of the common law, to form one community. No such law Is named, or implied, or alluded to, as being in force, or as brought into force by that compact. Nc provision is made by which such law could be carried into operation; :; whilst, on the other hand, everysueh inference or pretext is absolutely precluded by article ?, which declares 'slhat each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and ind independence, and every power jurisdiction, andrl5ht which is not by this confederation expressly dele gated 10 the United States ID Congress assem- bled'
 Thus far t appears, that not yestige ol thjs extraordinary doctrine can be found in the origin rproggess of American institutions. The evidence against il las, on the contrary, grown stronger at every step; ill il has a. mounted to a formal aad positive exclusion, by written articles of compactamong the par ties concerned.
 Is this exclusion revoked, and the com mon law introduced as national law, by the present Constitution of the United Safes; This Is the final question 10 be examined
 IL is readily admitted, that particular par.s of the common law may have a sanction from the Constitution, SO far as they are necessa- rily comprehended in tke technical phrases which express the powers delegated to the Government; and so ar, also, as such other parts may be adopted by Congress as neces- sary ani proper for carving into eXecu- ton the powers eXpressl Y delegated. But the question does nat relate to either ol these portions of the common law. It relates tG the common law beyond these limitations
 The only part of the Constitution which seems to have been relied OH in this case, is the 2d section of Article H. "The Judicial power shall extent to all cases, ia iat0 and eqasify, arising under tais C0asfitNion, tho laws of the United States, and Treaties made or which shall be made under their authori- ty."
 IL has been asked, what cases, distinct from those arising under the laws and treaties O the United States, can arise under the Con slitution, other than those arising under the common law; and 1t is inferred, that the com mon law is accordingly adopted or recognized by the Constitution.
 Never, perhaps, was so broad a construc- ton applied to text so clearly uasusceptl, ble of it. Ifany color for the inference coulC be found, it must be in the impassibili;y O finding any other cases in law and equity within the provisions of the Contribution, t6 satisfy the expression; and rather than resor to a construction affecting so essentially the whole character of the Government, 1t Woule perhaps be more rational to consider the eX- pression as a mere pleoaasm or lnadyerieAce But 1t is not necessary to decide on such a dilemma. The expression Is fully satisfied and it's accuracy justified by two description; of cases, to which the Judicial authority i. extended, and neither of which implies lha the common law is the law of the United States. One of these descriptions compre- hends the cases growing out of the restrle- tonS on the legislative power of the State For example, 1t Is provided that mo State shall emit bills of credit,'' or..make anything but gold and silver coin tender in paymen of debts.' Should this prohibition be viola ted, and suit 6eiaceen citizens o ths Sansf State be the consequence, this would be case arising under the Constitution before tho Judicial power o(the United States. \ sec ond description comprehends suits between citizens and foreigners; of citizens of differ ent States, to be decided according to the SIai' or foreign laws; but submitted by the Con stitution to the Judicial power of the Unltet States; the Judicial power being, in severa instances, extended beyond the Legislative power of ihe United States.
 To this explanation of the text, the iol lowing explanation may be added.