The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-07-31
viEws ON sTATRs
 RIGHTS.

RIGHTS.
 MT. s. A. Ashe a distinguished cit- izen of North Carolina. published the following in The Raleigh Times Of last | Saturday:
 There is a woeful lack of statues In our State Capitol One bust. alone,
 aeEs hs1 of 6rsss sohn % sase 1ss hs Calhoun prepared in the last years of his life Dissertation on Govern ment. and a Discourse on the Constl- States. They are thought to be the | most masterful works of the kind l ever written in America
 Calhoun did not think that judg- State ought to be reviewed by the Su- preme Court of the United States; he l even held that Congress had no su- thority to pass the judiciary act of ltss providing for & an appeal al. from na.as the Supreme Court. But he thought that all cases involving a Federal question should originate in a Federal Court. Court of the United States; and if a plaintiff should choose to select the forum of the State courts, he ought to abide by the judgment.
 On page sss. of Volume of his
 But i, may be alleged that tie section (Section 25 of the judiciary act) does not assume the broad prin- ciple that the State courts stand. in all cases in the relation of inferior courts to the Supreme Court of the United Sts tes; that it is restricted to appeals from the penal judgments or the highest courts of the several States; to suits in law and equity (ex- cluiing criminal cases). and In such cases to those only where the validity of treaty, statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States; or the construction of the Constitution. or of treaty, of jaw of, or commits sion held under the United States; or when the validity of any law of. or au- thority exercised under State are involved on the ground that they are repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States--and the decision is in favor of the law or the authority of the State. It may aisc be alleged that. to this extent. 1t was necessary to regard the courts of the State as inferior courts; and, as such to provide for an appeal from them to the Supreme Court of the United in decisions; and to avoid collision and conflict between the Federal Gov ernment and those of the several States.
 cision is concerned the appeal was lit- tie needed; and we'll might the author of the section in question be SO indif- ferent about securing II. The exten- sion of the judicial power of the United States. so as to make it commensurate with the Government itself, is suffi- cient, without the aid of an appeal from the courts of the States, to se- cure all uniformity consistent with a Federal Government like ours.
 Tt gives choice to the plaintiff to institute bis suit, either in the Fed eral or State courts. at his option. If he selects the latter, and its decision be adverse to him. he has no right to complain; nor has he right to a new trial in the former court, as 1t would in reality be. under the cover of an appeal. He selected his tribunal and ought to abide the consequences. But his fate would be Q warning to all other plaintiffs in similar cases. It would show that the State courts were adverse. and admonish them to com mence their suits in the Federal courts; and thereby. uniformity of decision wGtiq It Is os to ssea; be observed that MT. Call houn was not inadvertent tp cases where the Federal question" Twas the validity of any law of. or authority exercised under a State;' and that he argues that plaintiffs in such cases should commence their suits in the Federal Courts" This States rights oracle seems to have considered that the better and proper way; and ap- parently it was not in his view, de- structive of States rights.