The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-03-16

below might sustain his action" seemed to impD
that whether tho question OF jurisdic'on when me
VAS technically before II or not. distinctly aud
expressly passed upon by H. Here tho Judgment was
against the governments
Tue POWER TO EsFoRcE DECISIONS.
Other decisions OF a similar character were cited
and the Judge in conclusion said:--
There Is but one other and very unimportant part
Of TO be dealt with, aud that the
that ia tho eveat of the plaintiffs recovering In this
aclIon the Court would have power make good
judgment by final process But the Court WITH moi
imagine that its judgment would be resisted That 10
a matter that must take care of itself Mr. Justice
Blair. in Chisholm Georgia. Dallas, 45l, alter al
ludng this argument ao inutIe and speaking OF the
Jurisdiction OF the Court beng questo nabe tn
ground that Congress had not provided any form of
execution or pointed out any mode OF making judg-
ment against State effect ual, safd:-
Let US 20 on and H. at the Of the
business not :h powers given us IN the four
TO u.s. We mus. il to those
government whica have higher powers TO which,
ever necessity have recourse Is it al
tosether vain expectation that state may have othe,
sion . carry into execution Judgment OF TIE Supreme
the Unite States though not conormable TO ito
To the same effect wore the words OF Mr. Justice
Grier in the Eiiot Van Worst. where, 10
meeting the objection that there precedent to
le found tor his assuming jurisdiction OF cause,
JUDI meut the process Of the Court might be
inadequate 10 enforce mat practical wisdom and
downrghtness Of speech which characterized him ha
SAID, I'll Is time there was one"
is possible, the hight OF these cases TO hold that
the TACT OF the federal government being claimant by
record Tito property which Is made the subject OF
an indirect against It, in possession OF the prop
ery and in the ctual use OF IL Tor pubic purposes
defeats the Jurisdiction OF court to look into the
grounds Of titlc and decide the action upon the
merits.
SITTING here, in inferior court, am not at lib
erty mold because 10 do SO would be to overrule
the Supreme Court IN all the four cases OF Meigs
MCCLURE Wilcox va jackson, Grisav va. Mcdowell,
anu Cooley VS.. U'ConneL
have found 1t impractcable TO mako mention OF
each OF the multitude OF authorities which were cited
in the argument OF tho cause have, however, ex.
amiued them all, and think that have adopted the
teaching OF them and done violence 10 that OF
none.
arising which this especial question Of jurisdiction
has been raised the outset oil proceedings, aud IN
which iato of the governments title has seemed
70 depend wholly upon this question, the present u
Case OF first Impression.
IL ~ mol be denied that this Ia before the
Court In u form not heretofore known TO American
precedent that Is to say, II presents case IN which
tho sovereignty, sued comes INTO court, IN The nrst
ncipency OF the proceeding. degning 10 protest IT'S
exemption from amenablty the scLon, but dadain
ing TO submit itscli, as may have been done ia the
cases last clted, 70 the Jurisdiction OF the Court
case OF such consequence Will naturally ascend
from forum 10 the lofty ana most profoundly re-
verei tribunal OF ultimate resort provided by the con-
stltuuon OF the United States.
With hrm judicial confidence sustain the demurrer
plain III Ia this cause, and direct that 1t shall
proceed 10 the raised by the plaIntis
10 the Attorney Generals suggestion H. then,
1t shall 90 up the Supreme Court, as doubt not It
Win do, shall console myself with the memorable re-
lection Lord Nottingham the OF the Duke of
Nor. OH :-"I am not ashamed have made this de-
c,sion Will be wounded II 1t should be reversed"