The New York herald., 1867-04-13

not u CONSEQUENCE Of its being State but
up like other person, under that Clause o. tne con-
suon snd OF the Of 1859 giving this court right
10 decide not IN consequence of the character OF the par
ties tut In Of tho constitutional questions
involved Il is TOO long detain the court with reading
tat decision but this precise distinction is distinctly
maintained and reaflrmed by Chief Justice Marshall
from pages ss5 10 4oa Of Wheaton the same doctrine
Martin Il Wheatonh where tho decision Was given
by Mr. Justice Story In that case the learned Justice
ton the Supreme Court in all where It has not
original jusdiction subject however, TO such regula-
Sns may rs
can take original jursdction Suppose them that Con.
gress had passed law not only giving to individuals
the United States in the Inferior federal tribunals and
that either the plaintiffs the Defendants the state or
snS from %ns se 70 the
Court could not have both original jurisdiction and
appellate jursdic.on Then tns fesu. wouu sv sur.
municipality embraced rthin this Union conld bring
to Tho Supreme Court but the very states which M
forbidden ~ The constitution TO the government Of
tho Dated States IN it's own judicial ribanas In ad.
Osborne va the Bank Of the United States 70 Wheaton
620) in which the opinion given by Chief Justice
Marshall he said :s.In those In which original
iurisdicto on ia given 10 The Supreme Court the judc
power OF the United States cannot be exercised IN It's
appellate form In every other case the power Is TO be
exercised in its original or appellate form, as the
wisdom or Congress may direct.n With The excep
ton OF these CAGES, in which original jurisdiction
the judicial power extends from which the original
jurisdiction Of the inferior courts Is excluded by the
constitution Besides the authority q Judge IacSer
here have -four consecutive decisions OF TIL, Su-
preme Court OF the United States that in casas in wach
original jurisdiction Is gwen to the Supreme Court that
jurisdiction cannot he exercised by an inferior court nor
can the case como up by an appeal to the supreme
Court; that in cases like this the jurisdiction
stitution, and the constitution itself has con-
sented that in great case in which State is
party that State can make an appeal by orsiaa bil
m fha Cnur Th0 anrf will
regard TO the power by which this tribunal was created
that such the respect that was entertained for this
great department OF the government. such was the
absolute ssslly OF creating this department.
peaceful arbter to avoid the casnn2 OF arms and hos
e array u order 70 ayoa a aspusea nS asa Is
the constitution which was carried by a
unanimous vote OF the convention which framed the
instrument But suppose that instead OF being ex.
elusive the Jurisdiction should be concurrent-that
would not take away the original jurisdiction. The only
result would be that there might be suit brought in
the inferior judicial tribunals and brought up by appeal
TO the Supreme Court while there would be right 70
bring 1t here, by original bill also; bat as that would
present most extraordinary anomaly think 1t leaves
the conclusion clear shown by these four great de-
csons that the Jurisdiction would only attach In
brought against the United States government In
interior federal tribunal This original jurisdiction
general preserve peace with foreign
powers and the other to preserve peace between the diff
ferent component members OF this great Union. Tho
original Jurisdiction was given only in two cases-one
affecting ambassadors the other public ministers and
consuls, decisions regard to whom might affect vitality
the paco and happiness OF the whole nation; and the
other cases In which State should DO part decisions
in relation to whom also might be affected with most
disastrous results II there was not ono great
tribunal to which they might ha ten at once,
without delay or loss OF dignity, appearing before
inferior tribunals and lay their case promptly before
commentary that is most significant upon the import
ance OF conferring upon this court immediately with
out delay, without resort to inferior tribunals the
long course OF decisions there and appeal here the right
decide at all cases In which state party
Tue ycry foundations Of the rovernmens are ea' now
rocking on their bases, and II may be that
this government s to be saved n It is not to become
mere mass OF broken columns and moulderng ruins.
Perhaps It may we'll be that such result only bo
accomplished by the intcrpositon Of this
The meaning Of tho words 'statds" '''- and
parties" which seem greatly 70 st1nngthen thts
affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
coHsuls and those 10 which State shalt be parry tn
Supreme Court shall have original iursdc'iun' II
been settled by this court in repeated series of de-
cisions that the term party" there appeios well
party plaintiff as to party defendant. The
works used in the preceding clause of the
tion when the constitution speaks OF ocurovcrsi
which the United States shall be party" Now in tess
two cases. when the meaning OF the constitution
pressed in the samo words, "shall be pariv, z
shall the words Ceases IN which state
cases cases in which ~ State shall oe @ party sAs psia III
as well as party defendant And shall precisely
similar words, CONTROVERSIES to which the United
States shall be party, be construed having entirely
different moaning and as confined TO cases "a winch
the United States shall be party paIntfs By what
authority or law or Of any debate or proceedings the
convention which framed the constitution, IN the
State conventions which ratified il Ia the great
going to show tha. tia, clause Of the constitution which
speaks OF Controversies 70 which the United States
shall be party should have me restricted meaning.
by what authority would this court any other tribunal
nterpoate into the consultations the words conrovsr
81 to which the United STATES shall be party plain
tilt any than eshall be party defendantY' But
suppose for the sake OF argument that may be mis-
government OF the United States, the question
H. Is this suit against the government OF the United
a!es ans Is not SUIT assns. sae rresiaent Of the
was the suit against tho Governor q Georgia cited by
my learned brother and the Court we'll remarked in
that that process could issue unless against
the State because there was individual
named against whom any process could issue. But
ask is the President Of tho United states the govern.
mcnt Of the United Siaesp Is this suit against the
United States OF Ameroa9 Does the President suit
menp The distinction 10 drawn In the clearest
by Chief Justic yMarshak the great OF Burr
which ne ad:-"The siagle reservation alluded to is
the case OF Tho king Although ho perhaps NAV give
testimony IL is said TO be incompatible with his dignity
70 appear under the process Of the ,conrt
between the first magistrate Of England and the frat
magistrate Of The United States In respect personal
dignity conferred on them by their respective nauons,
cple OF tho English constitution that the king do
wrong; that no blame be impeted 70 him; that hs
cannot be named In debate BY the constitution OF the
United States the Presdent well any other officer
Of the government may DO impcaohed and may bc
removed from office on high crimes aad misdemsanors.
BY tho constitution of Great Britain the Crown
Is hereditary, and the monarch be subject
ny that of the United States the President is elected
from the OF the people and tue expiration OF the
time for wh Gu he elected returns to the OF the
people again How essentially this difference Of circum-
stances must vary the policy Of the laws OF the two
countries in reference to the personal dignity Of the Ex
ecuve Cpef viii be perce cd By every person In this
respect the lrst magistrate OF tho Union may
moro properly bo likened TO the first maglst,ate
OF state. at any rate, under tho former
confederation, and II IS not known c-er 10 have been
doubted that the chief magistrate OF State might
be served wth Subpoena al tetiEcaadam II In any
court of the Uuiicd states has been decd that
subpoena carno, issue 10 the President. that decision
is Unknown 10 .hs Coaft. Trial Of Aaron Burr, by
Coombs y. ij la tlas case the awinl COS sequences
which have Lecn referred 10 c!oquenty BY my learn
cd brother, CT stticnng the PRESIDENT OF tile United
States and compelling him by poccss OF alta,
obey Tie subcin, were all argued before Chief jus Ice
sarshal gave his opnian II was owing en-.
tr'ly TO cxtranecls causes that 1t became
necessary - carry II out; but this vpin-
ion was never recalled, or changed, or modified in
any respect whatsoever. or cours, " the Court had
rrhf euhprua dfrss tsruoa IN Tho prcsi4cnt