New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1860-10-24

every day Courts of Justice are the means usu-
ally employed; and it is reasonable to expect that
/ Government should repose on its own Courts
rather than on others.n
Il And in the case of Martin VS.. Hunters Lessee,
Wheat, R. 342-s, 346-7, 34s, Mr.. Justice Story, in
4 giving the opinion of the Supreme Court of the
United States in relation to the supremacy of the
| Union, the Constitution, and the decisions of the
Judiciary of the Union, says: 1t has been argued
that such an appellate jurisdiction over State
Courts is Inconsistent with the genius of our gov
ernment and the spirit of the Constitution. That
the latter was never designed to act upon State
soyereignties, but only the people, and that if
the power exists, it will materially impair the SOW
eighty Of the States and the independence of their
Courts. We cannot yield to the force of this rea-
/ sening it assumes principles which we cannot
| admit, and draws conclusions to which we do not
1 yield our assent.
I 1t is a mistake that the Constitution was not
designed to operate upon States in their corporate
capacities. 1t is crowded with provisions which
restrain annul the sovereignty of the States in
Of the highest branches of their prerogatives.
The tenth section Of the first article contains long
list of disabilities and prohibitions imposed upon
the States. Surely when such essential portions OF
State sovereignty are taken away, or prohibited to
be exercised, cannot be correctly asserted that
1 the Constitution does not act upon States. The
language of the Constitution is also imperative
upon the States as to the performance of many du-
4 ties. 1t is imperative upon the State legislatures
to make laws prescribing the time, places and man
| ner Of holding elections for Senators and Repre-
sentatiyes and for electors of President and Vice
President. And in these, as well as some other
cases, Congress has right to revise amend or su-
percede the laws which may be passed by State
Legislatures. When, therefore, the States are
stripped of some of the highest attributes of SOW
!. ereignty, and the same are given to the United
States when the Legislatures of the States are, in
some respects, under the control of Congress-, and
in every case are, under the Constitution, bound
by the paramount authority OF the United States,
is certainly difficult to support the argument that
the appellate power over the decisions of State
Courts is contrary to the genius of Institutions
The Courts of the United States ean without
question, revise the proceedings of the Executive
and Legislative authorities Of the States, and if
they found to be contrary to the Constitution,
may declare them to be of no legal validity.
Surely the exercise of the same right over judicial
tribunals is not higher or more dangerous act of
sovereign power.
Nor can such a right be deemed to impair the
Independence Of State Judges. It is assuming the
very ground in controversy to assert that they pos
sess an absolute independence of the United States
In respect to the powers granted to the United
| States, they are not independent; they are ex
/ pressly bound to obedience by the letter of the
Constitution; and If they should Internationally
transcend their authority, or niseonstrue the Con
sttution, there is no more reason fer giving their
judgments absolute and irresistible force, than
for giving it to the acts of the other coordinate
| departments of State sovereignty. -u-
| 1t is manifest that the Constitution has pro-
ceeded upon a theory of its own, and given or
withheld powers according to the Judgment of the
American people, by whom it was adopted. We
can only construe its powers, and cannot inquire
into the policy or principles which induced the
grant of them. The Constitution has presumed
whether rightfully or wrongfully we do not in
quire) that State attachments, State preiudices
State jealousies, and State interests might some
times obstruet or control, or be supposed to OBJ
sruct or control the regular administration of jus
tice. 4
And after enumerating the many cases in which
parties have the right to have legal controversies
heard in the national courts, well as the "neees
sy Of uniformity of decisions throughout the whole
United States upon all subjects within the pur-
view of the Constitution this same eminent
jurist and scholar says: " There is an additional
consideration, which is entitled to great weight
The Constitution Of the United States was designed
for the common and equal benefit of all the people
Of the United States. The judicial power was
granted for the same benign and salutary pur-
poses.''
And in the great case of Cohens vs. Virginia, @
Wheat r.. Ala, (and from which we have already
emphatic language: america has chosen to be,
in many respects, and to many purposes, nation;
and for all these purposes her government is com.
plete. The people have declared that in the exer-
else Of all powers given for these objects it is
supreme. 1t can then, in effecting these objects,
legitimatey control all individuals or governments
within the American territory. The Constitution
and laws of a State, so far as they are repngnant
to the Constitution and laws Of the United States,
are absolutely void These States are constituent
parts of the United States. They are members of
one great Empire-for some purposes sovereign, for
some purposes subordinate.n
So, in the cases of Ableman VS.. Booth aud United
States vs.. Booth, 81 How, r. 516 the present su-
preme Court of the United States through Chief
Justice fancy, says: g And although the State of
Wisconsin is sovereign within its territorial limits
to certain extent, yet that sovereignty is limited
and restricted by the Constitution of the United
States. And the powers of the General Govern,
ment and of the State, although both exist and
are exercised within the territorial limits are
yet separate and distinct sogeregnties acting sep.
arately and independently of each other, within
their respective spheres. And the sphere of action
appropriated to the United States is as far beyond
the reach of the judicial process issued by State
Judge or State Court as if the line Of division
| was traced by landmarks and monuments visible
to the eye.
But. as we have already said. questions of this
| kind must always depend upon the Constitution
and laws of the United States and not of State.
| The Constitution was not formed merely to guard
| the States against danger from foreign nations,
but mainly to secure harmony at home; for If this
object could be attained there would be but little
| danger from abroad; and to accomplish this pur-
pose, it was felt BY the statesmen who framed the
Constitution and by the people who adopted it,
that it was necessary that many of the rights of
sovereignty which the States then possessed should
| be ceded to the General Government, and that, in
the sphere of action assigned to it, it should be gu
preme, and strong to execute its own laws by its
own tribunals without interruution from a Sfate ar