The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1870-03-28

State court, he may. remove it to the
United States court iHt Brightlie's Digest,
page l29, and Cd do, page li3). The power
| is not given to oil officers, but only the
| revenue officers, and only yunder certain cir
| cumstances. Now, there is another cldss of
cases Cd Brightlie's Digest, page liz, }whefe
| an officer of the United States is sued in. q
State court for any act done during the re-
bellion by authority he may remove the case
to United States court. These acts are for
| the protection of the officers of the Unit ed
| States, and are we'll defined. It only nro-
tects them in the performance of their duty.
In suit on any other ground it may be
tried in Il State court. If. General Wells
were sued for an act done as o United
States officer during the war he could re-
move the case, but if sued for any other
cause the circuit court would have no iuris-
dictiou over it. The same would be the
case with General Canby, except that he
| might claim to he citizen of another State.
I deny that there is any generallaw giving
Jurisdiction to this court over cases affect
inc United States officers, and assertvthat
jurisdiction is we'll defined by special laws,
and is for the purpose of protecting officers
of the United States in specified cases only.
1t will occur to any contemplatirc mind,
and especially one engaged in studying the
Constitution of the country, that the means
of yindicating the supremacy OF United
States authority should exist and be
defined by law. | assert that the Gov-
ernment of the United States can vindi-
cate the supremacy of its laws, but it has
not confded this duty to a United States
commissioner, or marshal, nor the Secretary
of the Treasury; nor, | say now, to the
Circuit Court of the United States. The
Government has that power, and has pro-
vided that where this supremacy is i'm
pusned by any State law it shall be yindi-
Gated but it has placed that power in the
Supreme Court of the United States, whose
jurisdiction is to be exercised in q specified
manner, which I shall presently notice.
This power has been given to a court whose
decisions are known everywhere, in
order that that supreme power may be
known through the country, and be
of uniform operation. / maintain that
this power is not vested in any
court save the Supreme Court, i" and
secondly, that in that court cognizance
may be taken of all cases, no matter how
small, where the power of the Government
|
Brightlie's Digest, section 5, page $50, it is
shown that the act of Congress was not to
control any court, but simply to vindicate
the Constitution and laws of the United
States where they had been impugned by
the final decision of the Supreme Court of
State. 1t is provided that where the final
decision of q State Supreme Court is
against the United States Constitution or
treaty, or against commission held under
the United States, this decision may be ap-
pealed to the United States Supreme Court
without regard to the citizenship of the
parties. Congress has given this power to
the Supreme Court alone, and not the Cir
cult or District Courts Of the United States.
And even the United States Supreme Court
cannot take cognizance where the deci-
sion of State Supreme Court has been
in favor of the authority of the Uni
ted States and not against it, show
| ing the true intent of this legislation
to be-not that the Supreme Court may in
terfere with decisions of State courts, but
only where the authority of the United
States has been impeached. In case in
which it was alleged that an act of Iowa
Territory was unconstitutional and void be-
preme Court expressly delared Q2th How
ard, p. y, that they could not revise that
decision because this act Of Congress did
not extend to the case. 1t being restricted
to cases where State authority had infringed
upon the United States authority, and not
lin the case of territories. 1t was decided
that the act of Congress did not give them
authority to interfere. think have said
enough to show that believe that the Gov
ernment possesses power to protect its officers
and vndicate the Constitution, but it
has not been conferred upon the circuit
or district courts.
And now, on the other hand, it is just rs
important that the power of the tribunals
of each individual State should maintain
the supremacy of the State Constitution
over their State laws. Where State law is
deemed unconstitutional. it is to be decided
by the tribunals of that State. No Federal
court has a right to take jurisdiction Of o
case if that is the only question involved
and there be no other ground of juris-
diction. But if the court has jurisdiction
in the case-a suit between citizens of diffe-
rent States for example-then the court has
q right to decide on the constitutionality OF
the act. repeat, that if the validity of q
State law, compared with the Constitution
of the State, is the only question involved,
it totally fails to give a Federal court ju-
risdiction. Now, here we have a case be-
tween Ellyson and Chahoon, both citizens
of Virginia, founded on the claim that the
Virginia Constitution has been violated.
Your Honor may believe this; you may
believe that it has been wantonly yio-
lated but that does not give you juris-
dicton. l refer your Honor to 9th
Howard, page AIS, as affirming this
proposition. The question arose in Ohio
about the constitutionality of the State law,
and the opinion of the United States Su-
preme Court, delivered by Grier, was that
the court could not take cognizancc Of that
question. The same doctrine has been re-
peatedly asserted by other courts OF the
United States. ...- &. s...
Thus far, sir, have labored to establish
that the jurisdiction of this court does not
neither under the Constitution or the laws.
But if this court should take jurisdiction,
it must take one form or another-it must
be done under common law or equity.
While the common law procedure con-
forms to the local law Of the several
States, the equity practice is uniform.
If l am right in these views, it fol-
lows that this court has no Jurisdiction
first, because citizenship docs not give it !;
second, because the amount involved does
not give it and third, because the subject
matter is not within the power Of this court.
Congress never has and never con give the
power to interfere in q contest for State
office between two citizens of the same
State. The Government itself has never
claimed or exercised that power. The title;
To State office derived from State authority