Year: 1863

tanning truth, for even bad men may have
many correct principles. 1t was not
for opposition to Mr.. Monroe's plan that
that Convention became notorious. -
Even their denunciation of it seems in
tended as q PREDATORY apology for their
other schemes for it was not prepared
until two months after the plan had been
virtually abandoned by the report of Mr..
Giles plau to the Senate. The condem-
nation of the Hartford Convention was
founded mainly on the undue and selfish
prominence which it gave to, and the agi-
tations it raised in favor of its own sec-
tlonal interests, when the country was en-
gagged in dangerous warts opposition to
tue admission of new States, for fear of
losing the balance of power-its demand
that negroes should be considered part Of
the milita-its opposition to person Of
foreign birth being allowed to hold Office
and to its real or supposed intention to
produce q secession of tho Eastern States,
if it should not succeed in its measures
Their views, therefore, even by inversion,
or ad saUstliam amount to nothing in favor
Of this law.


On the subject of our authority to hear
such case, must infer, from the refusal
OF the Federal counsel to appear, that it


is denied and | express my views as we'll
as we'll as am able without that assist
ance which think they ought to have


rendered


No one denies that a Federal, as we'll as


a State officer, acting without constitutional


authority, to the injury of any one, is liza


Bile to be sued for his acts in the State


courts, and 1 am quite unable to discover


that there is any distinction in such cases


between preventive and redressive reme-


dies. AS at present advised, l cannot


doubt that the State courts, having author


ity to determine the right in such cases in


the first instance, they may exercise it ac-


oording to any known remedy that suits


the case. legal or equitable.


No ordinarily we'll educated man can


doubt that, independent of the Federal


Constitution, such universal juridicial pow


er is inherent in the States, and might by


them be assigned to their judiciary, as it


is in our State in the authority to enjoin


against all acts contrary to law and pre-.


judicial to the rights of individuals; and,


therefore, this power remains to the States;


unless it is taken away by direct prohibi.


ton with the Federal system.


No one that l know of pretends that it


has been directly taken away. Indeed,


so far as the Constitution itself goes, it is


expressly left to the States and therefore


to the State courts for the Constitution


actually institutes no court but the Su.


preme Court; and it gives to it no original


jurisdiction except in cases where foreign


minister or consul, or State is party


For all other cases within the Federal


power, it gives only appellate jurisdiction
And, as there may be no other than State
: courts to try these cases, the appellate ju
, risdicton OF the Federal Supreme Cour
necessarily leaves en- original jurisdiction
in them.


) True, tue Constitution authorizes sucl


inferior Federal courts as Congress may
think proper to establish but the author
, ity to establish such inferior courts canno
, divest this original State jurisdiction fol
Congress might never exercise its author
ity, or il might not assign it to them ex
, clusively of the State courts, The YER
: frame of the Constitution, therefore, ad


mits that the States may have the origina
' jurisdiction of such cases, subject to the
, appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Su
a preme Court, and DO Federal law has yo
D forbidden it to them, even if this may b
done.


, And such judiciary system was not a
4 all strange to the fathers of the Constitu
| ton, and is we'll known in history. |
: was the very system Of the colonies be
5 fore our independence. Our colonia
t courts had authority to try all kinds @
5 cases whether arising under colonial Q
y under imperial law, and the only remed
If for misjudgment was by appeal or writ c
r error to the proper imperial courts in Eng


land and so it was in Ireland before tn
= Union. And SO it is everywhere wit
h courts and other authorities that are merel
i local in their constitution and jurisdiction
s they administer even the general law {
e State, but always subject to the appellat
h authority of more general Jurisdictions
And this appellate jurisdiction was in gel
II eral considered sufficient to preserve Il
d Anglo Saxon courts in due subordinate
S. to the royal courts after the Norman col
rs quest though certiOrari to transfer cause
m before trial was also in use, and no No
y man was bound to abide the judgment
le Saxon court to whose jurisdiction
l. chose to object No doubt similar pra
in tice can be traced in every country, n
IS purely despOtic, where different State o
Of ganizations or different people have be,
lr united under one general government.
r many cases the paramount law is intern
ut tiOnaL law, and yet sectional or Sta
Dr. courts may decide what it is, subject
to the appellate jurisdiction of treaties OF
is armies.


Of With all this present to the minds of I
ID fathers of the Constitution, it seems to l
IS. that they could not have intended depi
of ture without giving expression to their
as tention, and this they have not done.
IS They seem even to express the contra


\ II 4 IL ~ i A