The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-12-28
FLOR the Dispatch !

In your editorial structures upon the re-
cent decision Of the Supreme Court OF tue
limited States in the case OF Williams ar-
nest Us. Brudy's administrator you have
misconceived the powers which that tribu'
nal has always recognized for itset from
the foundation of the Government. Inc
celebrated case OF Martin Us. HunteT,
| Wheaton. 1924, brought this same ques-
ton OF the appellate powers OF the supreme
Court of the United States over the cta'e
courts up for decision as early as 1919. Ihis
was writ OF error 10 the Court OF Appears
OF the state OF Virginia. founded upon the
refusal OF that court TO obey the mandate OF
the Supreme Court OF the United states,
recurring the judgment rendered IN tnis
canse 10 be carried into due execution. III
delivering the opinion OF the supreme
Court of the United States Justice storey
said: To me the Constitution appears III
every Inc OF il to be contract, when, III
legal language, may be denominaled tflEar-
titP. TIE parties are the people, the StaieS'
and the United States. 1t is returning IN
circle TO contend that it processes TO DE the
exclusive act of the people, for what nave
the peOple done but 10 form tins COM
naet ? That the States are recognized
nc narties to it is evident from va
rious passages, and particularly that IN
which the United States guarantee TO
each State a republican form OF gov
eminent. The security and happiness
of the whole was the object, ana 10
nrevent dissention and collision each sur
renders those powers which make them
DANGEROUS to each other. Well aware OF
the sensitive irritabiIity OF sovereign States
where their wills or interests clash, they
place themselves with regard to each other
on the footing of sovereignS upon The ocean,
where power Is mutually conceded 10 act
upon the individual, but the national Vessei
must remain Unvloated. And TO remove
all ground for jealousy and complaint, theY
relinouisb the privilege Of heng any longer
the exclusive arblterS OF their own 1usllce
where the rights OF others come I'D queS-
ton or the erea, interests OF The whole may
be affected by those feelings. partialitles, or
nrejudices, which they meant to put down
forever: -,
.Jn this act | can see nothing which
amounts TO an assertion OF the ln1efi-
ority or dependence OF the State tribu-
mails. The presiding judge OF the State
court il himself authorized (by the judiciary
act OF 1881 to issue the writ OF error II he
will, and thus give jurisdiction to the SUI
preme Court; ana II ne tuinks proper W
decline il, no compulsory process is pro-
yided by law to oblige him. The party who
imagines himself aggrieved rs then at liberty
to apply to Judge OF the United States
who issues the writ OF error. which (what-
ever the FORM is, in substance, no mere than
a mode Of compelling the opposite party to
appear before this court and maintain the
legality Of bis judgment obtained before the
State tribunal. An eXemplifcation OF re-
cord is the common property OF every one
who chooses to apply and pay for it, and
thus the case and the parties are brought
before us; and so far is the court 1.-THE State
COURT itself from being brought under the
revising power OF this court. that nothing
but the case, as presented by the record ana
pleadings of the parties, is considered, and
the opinions OF the court are never resorted
to unless for the purpose OF assisting tbs
court in forming their own opinions"
HENRY HUDNALL.