Case Name: The United States against Uriah Smith
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1818-02
Citations: 4 N.J.L. 33
Docket Number: 
Parties: The United States against Uriah Smith.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 37–45

Head Matter:
The United States against Uriah Smith.
in DEBT.
THIS action was instituted for the recovery of a penalty, for selling foreign merchandise, contrary to the prod J o o y x visions of an act of congress, passed August 2, entitled “An act laying duties on licences to retailers of wines, spirituous liquors, and foreign merchandise.”
*The declaration was in the usual form,in penal actions, under a statute. The defendant pleaded, “ that all and singular pleas, for the recovery of penalties, incurred by virtue of the said act of congress, ought to be pleaded before the District Court of the United States, and that the cause of action, if any the plaintiff have, is within the jurisdiction of the District Court of the United States, for the district of New-Jersey; and not within the jurisdiction of this court,” &c. To this plea there was a demurrer, and a joinder in demurrer.
gujt for penalty under revenue Irws u. States,
. t0 -)u"
Jurisdiction °^state courts
The cause was argued at November Term 1817, by Mr. Jeffers, deputy district attorney, for the United States; and Mr. Crane, for the defendant. '
Mr. Jeffers,
, after stating the object of the action, remarked ; that by the 8th section of the first article of the constitution of the United States, congress was empowered to lay and collect taxes; and by the 2nd section of the sixth article, the laws of the United States made in pursuance of the constitution, are the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state are bound by them. Many of the members of the convention, which formed the constitution, had given a practical illustration of its meaning, when in the first congress, they passed the law establishing the judicial system. By this law, the district courts are in some cases declared to have a jurisdiction exclusive of, and in others concurrent with, the state courts. It is fairly inferable, that previous to this, the state courts had jurisdiction of these cases; otherwise such a declaration of the respective jurisdictions, would have been useless and absurd. The acts of August 2, 1813, and March 3, 1815, under which this suit is brought, merely restore a jurisdiction, which had been either expressly or impliedly taken away from them, by the constitution and the law of 1789. And while this giving or restoring of jurisdiction to the state courts was not a violation of the constitution, it was a prudent and necessary arrangement; one which experience proved to be absolutely necessary to carry into execution the system, and collect the revenue established by the government.
Mr. Crane in answer.
The law of congress giving jurisdiction to the state courts, is a violation of the constitution, and a departure from the beauty of that system which has prescribed the ^'respective limits and duties to the federal and state governments. It has converted the State into Federal courts, and compelled the judges to perform those duties, for which others were appointed and are remunerated, and for which they receive no compensation. The constitution, in the 1st section of the third article, confers all the judicial powers of the national government on the federal courts, and they can only be taken away by an act as solemn. Congress have no power to change this state of things. The drawn from the statute, creating the judicial system, is unsubstantial. It is begging the question. Before the constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, no such case as the present could exist; there was therefore no power to be taken away or restored. Nor was this statute necessary for any of the purposes of collecting the revenue, or for any other object. Tire courts already in existence, were competent to every object. And if this were not so, mere expedience can never make a law of congress constitutional and proper. The opinions of other courts are entitled to weight, and several of them have refused to act under this law, believing it to be unconstitutional. See 6 Amer. Law Journal 113.
Contra Hal. Dig. 670, III. ¿ 2.

Opinion:
Opinion of the Court.
Kirkpatrick C. J.
This is an action of debt, founded upon the act of congress of August 2, 1813, for a penalty for selling foreign merchandise without license.
There is a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, and a demurrer thereupon, and a joinder in demurrer.
This demurrer raises a question on which much has been said, and much still remains to be said. It has engaged the highest judicial talents in the United States, and has drawn forth different opinions from different men, and on different occasions.
On a question so much litigated, it would be with much reluctance and still more diffidence, that I should undertake to express an opinion at all. In looking into the second and third articles of the constitution, however,
I feel strongly inclined to the opinion of those who hold that questions arising under the laws of the United States, belong exclusively to the judicial power of the United States, and that congress cannot transfer that power to the State courts.
In leaning to this side of the question, I am very conscious that *1 am influenced by no desire to extend that judicial power, beyond its prescribed limits. It is that feature of the constitution, to which I could never yield my cordial approbation, and in which I have always supposed I could see difficulties that could not be overcome.
To enter into argument upon it, would consume more time, than the matter here in controversy is worth, and certainly .could throw no new light upon the subject. Besides, though the construction of the constitution and laws of the United States necessarily belongs to, and upon proper occasions, must be exercised by the judicial power, not only of the United States, but of the individual states also, yet unless it be in very clear and unequivocal cases, it certainly behoves the state judiciaries especially, to yield to the sense of the representatives of the people in congress assembled. A want of suitable deference, and proper caution in this respect, particularly in the collection of the internal revenue, might throw the whole nation into confusion.
Whatever my own impressions may be, therefore, as to the, just construction of the constitution in this respect, yet inasmuch as the act of congress of March 3, 1815, giving the state courts jurisdiction in these cases, is unequivocal; inasmuch as the practice under it, so far as I know, has been universal; and inasmuch as the collection of the revenue depends upon it, and hi this case, the interest of the citizen, can in no way be injured by it, I am constrained to say; the plea must be overruled, and the defendant must answer over, &e.
Rossell J. was of the same opinion.