Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1855-01-30
From I'll" Mobile Register
TIE FEDERAL JUDICIARY y IT'S R;LA'
TIuNS TO THE SEPARATE STATES.


In proceeding to discuss the important question
presented by the action OF the Supreme Cnur; in the
ease Of Hunter VI. Martin, Judge ROanc necessarily
pdvcrtr,l. ~ Il basis for his argument, Ia what he
conceived to be the theory at the government, ana
the principles upon which il had been cnnstruc,"'i.--
.ln order To understand the question correctly. SAID
he. -, is proper IL rcc"lcct that the Government "i
the United States il not u sole and consolidated GOV
crnnrut. The governments nt the several States, IN
nil their parts, remain in full force, except Us they are
impnirrl BY grants at power 10 the general govern
mcnt." H. then quotes NAttrl Ia show what Is the
true idea of u Federal Republic, aS adopted and ri
forced by writers oil the law of nations. aiIl ati'r
insisting that his position is 1nuhly fortified by the
18th amendment I" the Constitution ut The United
States. reServing the powers not granted, ~" the
States respectively, or TO the people" he adopts the
language Of the Report of ~, aud "vicws the pow
rrs Of the Federal Government as resulting from the
compact To which the States arc parties us limited
Nv the plain sense and Intention ni the instrument
constituting that compact; and rs no further valid than
they are authorized by the grants enumerated in The
.culnpact." Judge ROanr then proceeds Ia argue
with great furco nnl conclusiveness that from the
very nature OfOur institutions the governments, State
and Federal, being entirely independent III their re-
.pcctivr spheres, naturally net through their own M
drprndcnt organs. That there il nothing in the Com
.tiiulion modifying this natural principle, but that thu
whole tenor of the article IN the Judiciary looked
solely aud exclusively Ia the Courts Of the United
States. That the 18th section of the Judiciary Act,
invaded with a high hand this important fundanrAt-
1 fl I'll lIlI, w lla'hlh- wv sA'A' 'N'A'T ''f' . ''
rul Courts, though they We're not establislIrd, nor
their Judges commissioned by the Federal Govern
ment. That if the Act was constitutional, it was :"
hv ;D.pl.raiiOH, from the circumstance that the Stni"
Courts in the course of their ordinary iurisdIctinn, III
ciden,ally acted upon the Constitution. laws. or trra-
ties of the lritcd States. That all Courts dill tins.
that recognised the doctrine OF hr hci: ali that II
such Il construction was tolerated, iii would equally
make the Supreme Court OF Calcutta n part ut theJu-
dicial system of the United Stutcs.'" He then goes "n
| D., .h,ur IL nj tho trumprs pf the l'pus,itutt,n did mol
leave much more important pow ers than the one
claimed, by implication, and he inrrihly asks:
.lt' the convention deemed il n"rr--ary /" writ"
rRh n ,Nn Ot sh.l III Relation 10 the stronger ease.
inst mentioned, is il To he believed tina, they would
have conveyed /" ~Gt'r ""l'rS the weaker powrrn""
in question!
After having disposed OF the constitutional view
the learned judge proceeded Ia answer the Wr""cf'
Mm 0L jHrOurCnrnti which hRd been made i'll favor
If the Federal jurisdiction. This h.. did most adj!
and rflcctualIv, H. the 'curinus realrr'' will see bS
referring tn his opinion upon the point. that 10 a!l"w
independent action Ia tho State courts Oh the laws Hnd
treaties of the United States, would destroy the uni-
formitv 81 desirable in their construction. His argu.
mcnt is so pcrep!cuuis and compact that cannot re-
-i-t the t-mptn'i"m TO give II here III hi, own words.
The prc;enrc l-nys h"l ct! rendering uniform all
judgments in the ease OF treaties is M. attained hv
the provisions of the Judicial act. q. Under that act
the appeal equally lies Ia the Supreme Court "t the
United States, where such uniformity already exists,
aud j. denied where II l. wanting. II for example the
supreme tutirt Oi Inc United States has hctui'l
M,dinSt n hr0ig and the Supreme Court nf II State
decides me- sam" ray, there. this uniformity already
cxis.s. and yet the appeal i allowed. II. on the "th-
rr hand the former rnur; decides GgGipi It hr0'g, and
the latter IN IdrDr n n, this uniformity l. wHIt!m.
and Vet the appeal l. ID rni"i,'
The eloquent Judge then dcnnuucr, the twenty
fifth section as n legislative c"utrivnncr to draw {" the
Federal Gnvrrurnrmt powers Tha. Were never grant
I'd. He cnucIir- lis opinions in M honic,l phIa-c--
what he thinks. he says md he SAYS II III language;
frrvid, and vigorous, and clcar, herring along with II
no less evidence nj M honest. patriotic and SINGER"
heart. than n deep and thorough conviction I'll the
mind ~ to the truth "f what he is speaking.
"rhis 18th section, " says he, is indeed the natural
offspring Of the parent from which il has proceeded.
The navel pcctac!e Of n Judgment bein. tnnl or nor,
rs il may chance IL be on one side or the other, AMI
OF II court being of the last resor: or otherwise, ns ih-
decision may happen Ia hive been for one or the other
ot the parties, Is worthy uf Il system which only nj
mits the Judges Ia be impartial on one side ut n gwen
question That. however. Is u clIIIn"rn existing ";ily
in the Imagination ut a former Congress.
1T was All after thought well calculated 10 aggrnn'
die the general government ut the expense al tht
Statcs-tu work a consolidation OF tho c"niedtra"y-
and can only be pretended 10 be justified by the broad
principles of construction. which brought the alicI
and seii;inn laws into nnr code. | would c"nsigG il
to a common tomb with them, n members of tn,
same family, and originating in the same era Of on
government
OF course this plain, out-spokcn, unanimous opin
ion of the highest Court nj NirgInn could not b,
passed by unnoticed by the Supreme Court Of the L