The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-12-28
SATURDAY, DECEMBER IS, 1907.
Obedience is our universal duty
and destiny. wherein whose will not
bend must brcnk.-Cnrlylc.
JEFFERSON AND THE Federal.
COURTS.

JEFFERSON AND THE FEDERAL.
COURTS.
II may be surprising to some of our
readers to learn that the first man in
this country to recommend that some
means be devised to punish residents
of n State for attempting to transfer
to the Federal courts suits brought by
or against them in the state courts
was no less a person than Thomas
jefferson.
The circumsta nces under which the
Recommendation was made were Pc
culiar. In 1927, when party spirit ran
high, and when the Federallsts Were
unusually aggressive a Federal grand
Jury in Richmond inspired by the
!, charge of Judge 1redel, of the United
States District Court. presented several
members of Congress. notably Samuel
j. Cabell. of Virginia, charged with
sending to their constituents circular
letters containing "calumnies against
the happy government OF the United
States
Under any circumstances. such az
attack upon free speech would have
stirred the Sage of Monticello; but 1t
SO happened that Congressman Cabell
was his personal friend. and Mr.. JET
ferson was thoroughly aroused by the
sensational indictment In letter to
Mr. Monroe on the subject. he first
took occasion TO repeat his well-known
views on the subject OF free speech.
The right OF free correspondence be-
tween citizen and citizen on their joint
interests" said he. whether public
or private, and under whatsoever laws
ii is not the gift Of any municipal law.
either of England, or Virginia, or
Congress; hut in common with all oln'
natural rights, it is one of the objects
for the protection of which society 10
formed and municipal laws estab-
lished.'
Then, warming up TO the subject, he
delivered q lecture on States rights
declaring that the courts of Virginia
were originally competent to the
cognizance of all infractions of tho
rights of one citizen by another, and
that they still retained all their judi
ciary cognizances not expressly alien
ated by the Federal Constitution. II
is of immense consequence" he con-
cluded, that tile States retain as com
pletc authority as possible over their
citizens. The withdrawing themselves
under shelter OF foreign jurisdiction
is SO subversive of order and SO preg-
nant of abuse chat it may not be
an1iss to consider how far q law Of
praemunirc should be revised ant
modified against all citizens who at
tempt to carry their cases before any
other than the State courts, in case!
where those other courts have no RICH
to their cognizance. A plea to tn
jurisdiction, If adjudged valid, would b.
safe, but il adjudged invalid. woul,
be followed by the punishment o
rraemunre for the attempt"
Under English law, the statute o
praemunire was an ordinance impos
ing outlawry, forfeiture or imprison
nent on those who should sue in for
etgn courts for matters cognizable /
England.
Mr.. Jefferson's proposal to introduce
such law III the United States ind
Gates how deeply he resented the a
tempt of the Federalists TO haul Vii
ginia citizen before a United State
4 court and punish him for exercisin
the right of free speech. In the ligl
Il of this disclosure. we incline to II
opinion that IL there had heen gial
railroad corporations in those day
and If they had gone into the FEEDER
courts seeking injunctions to restra
the operation Of State laws, Mr, Jelfe
ron would stiil have said 20 Mr. Mo
roe, 1T may not be anass TO consid
how far a law OF pracmunire shou
he revised and modified against
corporations Which attempt 10 car
their cases into the Federal cour
when express provision is made
them in the State courts