New-York tribune., 1867-04-13
NEWYORK, SATURDAY, APRIL 10. 1867.

ChefJ usiee Marshall h the case OF Marbury agt Mad
son than he intended n that case rne s,eb Shal an
application wac made TO tho Supreme Court TO exerese
is R G words S ,e IN that decision that
these terms were negative OF any jurisdiction Oh Any
ton Of the judicial power having vested the exclusive
oiena jurisdiction OF such cases Ia the Supreme Cou1
The State OF Virginia came MP under the 25th section OF
the Judiciary act, Chief Justice Marshall, while re~a ~
ing many words the original decision that in cases
that before Supreme Court consequence OF te
character Of the parties the words negative ana ns
the original Jurisdictions exclusive, says u does noc
tend where q State Ia, norin consequence
Of e charaeter Of the party nor in consequence & U %
that clause OF the Constitution aud OF the act OF Isg gy
ing this Court night TO decide not IN th ona ~ .
tutonal questions involved lt Is TOO iong 10 ue,u
tho Court with reading that decision but this precise DIS
tnston Is distinctly maintained and reaffrmed by Chief
Justice Marshall page 800 TO 402 OF wheaton, ie same
doctrine will be found incidentally IN the case OF hunters
Lessee agt Martin no wheaton, where the decision was
gypn by Mr. Justice Story In that case the Learned Jus
luton TO- the supreme Court in all cases where IL has not
original jurisdiction subject however 70 such ~ I regs @
not take appellate Jurisdiction in aeause In wneh ~ can
tale original jurlsdicton suppose, then thas O0ngfesi
corporations but giving to STATE the right 70 sue ans .ns
United states IN me INFERIOR % ssendant ,be State or
thu person who was sueing, had brought up scn
case aud appealed from tho inferior tribunal 70 dhe
ton aud appellate Jurisdiction Then the result Would Io
low that every citizen every corporation eyey en
brine case 10 the Supreme Court hut the very states
which formed the are the Ghy
Of the United States In IT'S own Juuicmi tIoniils.
p addition ease to Of s ooe G%es ae Ss Bank o the
United States Wheaton $40 IN which tnq oPcn was
IL which original jurisdiction is given to the Supreme
Court the judicial power of the United cao pe
power 10 be- exercised IN s original or appeate Ior
rs the wisdom Of Congress may direct Wlth tne exce
tiOp Of these In which original Jnrisdeuoh ~
evfu 10 this Court there IN 10 which the judicial
poFcr extends, frt, which the original o to
inferior Courts excluded by the Constitution Beside
the authority OF Judge Tucker, here we have four con
scc;ye decisions Of the Supreme Courts OF me uted
states that In which original jurisdiction IL
given the Supreme Court that jurisdiction cannot De
by an a eTg conT Sn % in h
the Jurisdiction is exclusive; t Il vested directy py VIC
that in great which state is party that State
can make appeal by original bill to the supreme
Court The Court Will rccoeet that In regard 10 tue
power by which this tribunal created that such was
tho respect that was entertained for this great depart
ty Of creating the department as q peaceful
Grfhter TO avoid tho elasnlng Oh, OF arms
aStuted questions of constitutional law that the
only in the Constitution which was carried oy
strnmcnt But suppose that instead Of being exelu
siys, the jurisdiction should be concurrent, ihnt woua
would be that there might be- suit brought In the IN
snsPrns lsIGr Court Will there would be hight bring
here by original bill also but as that would present e
.6oSn bV these tenr great decisions that tho
ursdcfion would only attach In cases in which State
was NOT party and the bill brought against the
United States Government In inferior Federal trlbu-
nal This original jurisdiction was only gwen III Two
one a. prserye our peace with foreign natos and the
other to preserve peace between inc nsrSn. vV,np ,p
drtion was given only In two cases-onc affecting
Fmbassadort the other public MINISTERS, su i
the peace aud hsppnsss whole Nation and the
oker in which stae should oe Py @ mos a..
astrous results, II there was not one great iipuha o
which they might hasten az once M%es n5so s"f rbnas
aud lay their promptly before ths CourI AIe nvt
the facts that arc now ranspIng M ,ppo 'no
most significant upon the importance oil conerInB upon
ths Court immediately without delay wlthont s0r.
w. md srres ssrr tho right decide at el
cas- which state II ~ party, or controversy IN
OF he Goverumcnt are now rocking their bases and
may be that this Government Il to DO saved II "
moldoring ruins. Perhaps II may well be that snch
result can only be accomplished by Gu" ntsSsS m .,
the meaning OF the words states and parties" which
seem greatly 10 @ a s s,eetp
other public ministers and Sons9ls' and those
,he n supre@e %9S Court shall have original Srsdico
has been settled by this Court In repeated seirs 9i ae
o"tty nlantif as 10 party defendant The words
are used the preceding clause OF the same section
w which the United States shall be party" Now,
In these two cases, where the meaning, Of th9
ScHs,'SuGT SS raTtvoSsha the words leases in which
state shall be party" be construed td extend 10 cases
In which state shall he party plaintlft as wen as
parry defendant, aud shall precisely similar words con-
troyersies to which tue uhi'ed sIaIeS St o pi
be constsued as having an entirely d.Ii.iehI meanF
and as confined In which the United states sa
be party plaintiff by what authority OF law, or oi
Sny debate or Convention which framed
the Constitution, In the various state 'onNfnuhS
which ratified IT, In the great discussions In the FEEDER
ast win you fnd single word going to show that clause
Of the Constitution which speaks contr0y Itrles 20
restricted meaning shall be party PLAINTIFF and not
party defendant by what authority would ts court
words controversies which theUnted states slall be
party plaintiff" any more than shall be party dc, de
may be mistaken In this supposton, and that We can
not directly sue the Government Of the United states
the question s IL this SUIT against the Government of
the United states This Is not suit against the Prchl
dent Of the United States only giving the ,nS, name
the Governor OF Georgia cited by my learned brother
could issue against the state because there was no
Individual named against whom any process could issue
the Government OF the United statesi Is this suit
against the Unled States OF Americai Does the Pres
dent In like this represent all the Departments Ot
the Government The. distinction Is drawn IN the
cIearest by Chief Justice Marshall IN the great
ton alluded To-, is the case of the king. Although
perhaps testimony is said , TO be 1f
The court OF the points Of difference which eTs, @
magistrate OF the United States In respect to the
personal dignity conferred them BY their respective
is principle Of the English Constitution that the King
can do wrong that no blame can be imputed 70 him;
on @ ss canine S Se United gS sae the Prespe as we'll
as any other officer of the Government may be impcached
and may removed from office on high crimes and mis-
demeanors BY tho Constitution Of Great Britain the
Crown In hereditary and the monarch can never De
subject BY that OF the United States the President Is
elected the Of the people and ON the expra
tion Of the time for which he Is elected returns
TO the Of the people again How essentially
this difference OF circumstances must vary the policy
IL She laws Of the two countries IN Difference TO the per-
soal dignity Of the Executive Chief will be received by
every person In this respect the Fist Magistrate o. te
Urlcn more properly be kened to the First Mags
tretN OF q State, at any rate, under the fOTncr
confederation and IL is not known ever 10 have
haon huf ha MaQlstrate OF