Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1881-01-03
CentraliziBg Tendency OF the United
States Supreme Court.

| CentraliziBg Tendency OF the United
States Supreme Court.
We have already made brief allusIon
TO the action Of the United States
Supreme Court in the case of Williams
and Arnert against VIM. ]. Brrffy, adj
ministrator, which was brought and re-
Gently decided in the State courts of VT-
ginia. 1t will be remembered that the
suit was brought in the Rockingham
County Circuit Court against an estate
of which Bruffy was administrator to re-
cover the value of certain goods sold
by the plaintiffs, who were Penn
sylvanisns, to the defendant in
March 1861. The administrator plead
the act of the Confederate Government
sequestrating debts to alien enemies. and
that under that act the amount claimed
had been paid over to the receiver ap
pointed under the law. This payment,
it was held, discharged the debt.
The Rockingham court decided in ia
vor of the validity Of this plea, and gave
Judgment for the defendant. An ap-
peal was taken to the Supreme Court of
Appeals Of the State, which decided that
the decision of the court below was
plainly right" The plaintiffs then ap-
pealed directly to the u. s. Supreme
Court, which, after examining into the
case, took upon itself to reverse the ac-
ton of the Supreme Court of Virginia,
and directed that court to reverse its de-
cision. This the Virginia court, very
properly. refused to do, and the United
States Court then directed the Inferior
State Court to reverse its judgment and
give a new judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs.
This action Of the Supreme Court Of
the United States is clearly revolution
airy, and strikes at the very foundation
Of the doctrine Of States rights. Had
the case been brought originally in a
Federal Court, and been decided as it
was in the Circuit Court of Rockingham
county, and then had an appeal been
taken to the Supreme Court of the
United States, the proceedings would
have been all right and regular,
for the Federal judiciary is
given by the United States Constitution
Jurisdiction over cases in litigation be-
tween citizens of different States. But,
having been brought in a State court,
and having passed regularly through the
highest tribunal of justice known
to that State, we cannot sec what
right the United States Court had
to interfere, and especially what right it
had to order State courts to reverse their
decisions As far as this particular case
is concerned it was. under the circun-
stances, final decision, and the United
States Supreme Court had no more right
to interfere with it than it would have
to order British court to reverse one of
I its decisions.
! If the principle assumed by the Su-
preme Court of the United States is cor
rect, then the States have no rights
which the Federal Government feels
bound to respect, and that clause
of the Constitution which declares that
'the powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohib-
tied by it to the States are reserved to
the States respectively, might as well be
expunged. Hereafter there would be no
reliability to be placed upon the deci
sions of State tribunals, and they would
all become nothing more nor less than
inferior members of the Federal judicia-
~ systems 1t is a dangerous doctrine
to promulgate, and we are sorry
to see that the decision in the
case above enumerated was rendered by
Judge Fields, who, few months since,
delivered an able and mastery dissenting
opinion in the cases Of the Virginia JUS
I tees arrested by Federal Judge Rives
on the charge of not putting negroes on
their juries, in which opinion he strong
ly and unanswerably opposed Federal
interferencewith the judiciary of State.
| No doubt he justifies his change of base
by plentiful supply of legal tech
nicalities, but the only conclu-
sion to which we can at all
arrive, in considering the matter, is
that the United States Supreme Court,
which has always been regarded as the
great bulwark of the Republic and the
Constitution. is taking the lead in estab-
fishing the pernicious doctrines of cen
tralization. We hope the Rockingham
| Wa) court will do as the State Supreme
Court of Appeals has done-positively
refuse to obey this mandate of foreign
tribunal which has no authority over it
whatever.