®£inidn. and lam convinced experience will prove *t, there will, nor can be no suit or action brought in any of the State courts but may under this clause be reverfcd or affirmed by beingbrought within the cognizance of the supreme court. But should there be fonie exceptions for the present, yet Sir, the precedent is so forcible, for it goes so far as even to admit of constructions that under fonie con itruction or other, of some of the articles, those articles wiH in time be totally loft. Sir,let us look at the court of exchequer in England—Revenue trials at firll engrolied its whole attention—from a series of fiction there is now 110 personal ac tion but from conltruction may be brought with in their cognizance—lt is only to suggest, and very seldom true that the plaintiff is a kings debt or and the avtion is well grounded—Yet there they have counter checks and another resort— here the supreme court is final. Sir, the gen tleman from South-Carolina [Mr. Burke] was right in declaring a resident on lake Erie might dragged to York for trial, as that on the Oconee to Savannah. Nay, Sir, 1 know not how far in time a nianmight not be dragged from the Oconee to be tried in North-Carolina; for one part of the bill-, without fpecifying the spot, de clares that the circuit courts shall have power to hold special felfions for the trial of criminal causes at their discretion. On thole considerations I hope the House will not adopt the present fyf tein until the milder one is tried. It is calculat ed to harrafs and foment the people, without an fvvering any essential purpose. fN. B. In Mr. Jukfon's fpeeeh in our lajl, middle column, inline injieadof " the firfl he has brought forward," tfad the firft I lhall notice and mjleaaof LL the firji privilege of everyggovernment"t t " read the firft principle of every government.^ Mr. Smith (S. C.)~ AH the difficulties and in conveniences which the gentlemen have started as' arising from the cftablHhinent of a district court arise from the government itfelf. All the objections made to this court apply equally a gainst having any national judicature. Indeed it they had any weight they woidd as forcibly apply againll: the very institution which the gen tlemen patronize, viz. a court of admiralty and piracy. If there is to be this perpetual clashing of jurifdicftions between the federal and State courts, this eternal jarring between their respec tive officers, will not these embarrassments exill under any judicial system which the ingenuity of man can devjfe ? Will they not take place un der the establishment proposed by the other fide ; and will the mere alteration of the court from a district to a court of admiralty and piracy reme dy the evil ? But these objections come too late ; a national government is established—the judi cial power is a component part of that govern ment, and mult be coinmenfurate to it. If we have a government pervading the Union, we inuft have a judicial power of similar magnitude : We must eftab'ifh courts in every part of the Union. The only question is, which is the plan best calculated to answer the great objects we all have in view, the carrying the judicial powers into operation with the least inconvenience to the citizens. This double system of jurisprudence is unavoidable ; it is as much a part of the Conlli tution as the double system of legislation ; each State has a legislative power, and the Congress has a legislative power, both operating on the fame persons, and in many cases on the fame ob jects : It is infinitely more difficult to mark with precision the limits of the legislative than of the judicial power: No one however disputed the propriety of vetting Congress with a legislative power over the Union, and yet that power is per haps more liable to abuse than the judicial. It has been indeed contended in some of the State Con ventions that Congress ought not to be intrusted with direct taxation ; and it is remarkable that the fame obstacles were urged against that pow er which are now suggested against this institu tion. It was then said that federal and State taxes could not operate at the fame time without confufion ; it was then facetioully aiked, whe ther the Congrefiional and the State collector who had seized a horse for the payment of taxes were to divide him between them ; it is now afk cd with equal pleasantry, whether the marshal of the district court and the flieriff of the State court who have taken the fame debtor in execu tion are to cut him in halves.—lt was then an swered, that if the State collector seized the horse firft, he will have the firft fatisfacftion : It was alf'o shewn that there are frequently in the fame State, State taxes, county taxes, and corporation taxes, and that these never occasioned any clash ing or confufion : It may now be answered that there are at present in some of the States, State conrts, county courts, and corporation courts ; and that these are found convenient, and unac companied with the clashing so much apprehend ed. They keep within their particular spheres, and have their limits ascertained. Bur, in an fwer'to one fuppofirion allow me toftate another : Suppose a State flieriff and a county fheriff ihouldl'eizetne fame debtor, would he be parcel led out between them ? would not the execu'-ion which was firft-ferved take effect ? Is not this the practice at present, and will it not be so under this system ? It is very easy for gentlemen in the warmth of their imaginations to suppose a varie ty of cases, and to raise a multiplicity of objec tions against any fyftein of jurisprudence whate ver: They will all be more or lei's liable to some objection on the lcore of inconvenience, but they are submitted to by good citizens who are fenli ble that they are the surest means of protecting their property, reputations and lives. After all that has been said, it does not appear that we diffprfo widely as was imagined, for the gentle men who advocate the motion,concede tlienecef fity of some inferior federal court in each State : this clause does nothing more than establish an inferior federal court in each State. What then do gentlemen object to ? If it is the name of the court, that may be altered—if it is the frequency of holding thein, it will be very easy to amend the clause in that reflect; but why move to strike out the clause altogether, when it is granted on all hands that there must be such a court. The objection to the extent ofjurifdiction is premature, and ought to be reserved for the clause which as certains the jurifdi(ftion ; if upon an inveftiga lion of that clause, it shall appear that it ought to be reftriited, that will be the seasonable time for moving to strike out the exceptionable part, but really at present gentlemen are making ob jections to one clause which, from their own con ceflions, apply altogether to another. As to se veral other observations, which relate to the time of holding the courts, and the mode of drawing jurors, it is unneceflary to reply fully to them at present, because it would be improper to run into a discussion of the detail, while the question is on the principle of the fyftein. lam no less opposed to the time of holding the courts and the mode of drawing jurors, provided by the bill, thanthe gentleman from whom the ob jection came, and I shall add my endeavors to his, to effect an alteration in these points ; but this is not the proper time, we are now on the princi ple, whether there (hall be a district court; The fame answer will apply to the objection that the juries and witnefles will be unneceflarily harraf fed ; every care will be taken to accommodate these courts to the convenience of the citizens of each State. Several other difficulties hare been urged as growing out of this plan of jurisprudence ; a can did difcuflion will remove and obviate them. It has been said, that the bill provides a number of appeals from the State to the supreme court, through the district and circuit courts, and that the suitors may be persecuted with appeals car ried on from one court to another, through four different courts. An attentive examination of the bill is a fufficient answer to this objection : There is no appeal from the State to the district court, and only a power of removal in certain cases of a federal jurisdiction from the State to the circuit court: neither is there any appeal of fact from the district to the circuit court, but in admiralty causes, and these cannot be after wards carried up to the supreme court but where the value exceeds 2000 dollars. It has been said that under the idea of vicin age, a man may be dragged far from his friends to trial from Georgia to North Carolina ; but it must be remembered that there is a Constitution al provision, that the criminal shall be tried in the State where the offence is committed, and the bill is conformable to the Constitution in this respect. It has been ohferved that the Constitu tion is 110 bar to veiling the State courts with federal powers, for the words " such inferior courts as Congress shall from time to time eftab lilh," imply that Congress may notinftitute thein, and if they are not iiiftituted, these powers must of course remain with the State courts : In reply to this argument it is to be obferved,that the words, " such inferior courts, &c>" apply to the number and quality of the inferior federal courts, and not to the possibility of excluding them altogether: It is a latitude ofexpreffion empowering Congress to institute such a number of inferior courts, of such particular conftrucftion, and at such parti - cular places as shall be found expedient: In short in the words of the Constitution, Congreft may establish such inferior courts as may appear re quisite. But that Congress must eftabliih some inferior Courts is beyond a doubt: In the firft place, the Constitution declares that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in a supreme and in inferior courts. The words shall be vested" have great energy, they are terms of command ; they leave no discretion to Congress to parcel out the judicial powers of the Union to State judicatures, where a discretion ary power is left to Congress by the Constitution, the word "may" is employed, where no discre tion is left, the word "ihall" is the appropriate term; this distinction is cautiously observed. Again, the Supreme Court in two cases only has original in all others itlias appellate jurisdiction ; but where is the appeal to come from ? Certainly not from the State courts; it must come from a federal tiibunal. There is another argument which appears conclusive : Tlio Constitution pro vides that the judges of the Supreme and inferior courts shall hold their commiflions during good behavior and /hall receive falariesnot capable of diminution, and ii further provides that the ju dicial power of the Union shall be veiled in a Supreme and inferior courts ; that is in aSunrem and inferior courts whose judges thai 1 are to ] ' comtniffions during goo d behaviour and le ' r pollels salaries not liable to diminution Does not then the Constitution in the P l ainp(v andn.oft unequivocal language preclude allotting any part of the judicial authority O fZ Union to the State judicatures' The bill • • said, is then unconstitutional, for it recomii,'a* authority of the State courts in that clause whiA empowers the Supreme Court to overturn the 7 ci lions of the State Courts when thole decifil are repugnant to the laws or Conftitntion the United States. This is no recognition any such authority, it is a neceffaryprovifi„, to guard the rights of the Union against the n vafion ofthe States Isa State court Ihould ufum jurifdicftion of federal causes, and by its J judications attempt to strip the federal Govern' ment of its Constitutional rights, it is necellarv that the national tribunal should poilbfs the Po \v er of protecting those rights from such invalkm 1 he committee have been told that thismultipli' cation of courts, and of appeals will diftrefsth citizens ; and the number of appeals in Great Britain have been alluded to. 1 have always heard that there is no country in' the world where justice is better administered than in that country ; to its excellent and impartial admimftra tion the profpei ity, freedom and civil rights of its citizens have been attributed: Were appeals too much restrained in this country, linuchqucf. tion whether a great clamor would not beraifed against luch a rellritftion : Thecitiziens of afree country, when they lose their cause in one court, like to try their chance in another: This is a privilege they consider themselves justly in titled to, and if a litigious man harrafles his ad versary by vexatious appeals, lie is fufficiently punished for it by having the colts to pay. By limiting appeals to the Supreme Court to funis above iooo dollars, as is proposed, the poor will be protected from being liarrafled by appeals to the Supreme Court. There is one more observation Which requires an anfwer:—lt was said that the juries, might be dragged from one end of a State to another; provision is expressly made against this in the bill ; it is there enaifled that the juries fliall be so drawn as to occasion the smallest inconveni ence to the citizens. After having very mature ly confulered the fubjei/t and attentively examin ed the bill in all its modifications, and heard all that has been alledged on this occasion, lam per fectly convinced that, whatever defeats may be discovered in other parts of the bill, the adoption of this motion would tendto the rejection of every system of national jurisprudence. [7fo remainder of this debate in our next\ WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1. A petition from the citizens of Philadelphia refpe&ing the permanent and temporary residence of Congress was read. The petition of the creditors of the United States residing in the city of Philadelphia, was refered to the committee ofways and means. Mr. Viking then brought forward his motion refpeftingthe validity of the Jersey election. in a new form, viz. " Resolved, that James Schureman, Lambert Cadwallader, Elias Boudmot, and Thomas Sinnukfon, were duly and properly returned mem bers of this House." Mr. Sherman madea number of observations in fupportof the validity of the election. Mr. Smith (S. C.) spake on the fame fide. The following is the substance ot his argument : This is a fubjeft which requires considerable attention. I con. fefs I had doubts yesterday. I have since made up my opinion. It appears to me the matter turns on the conftruttion of the law of New-Jersey. I n the firft place the law admits of a conftru&oa that the returns ought to be made, and the elettion announced oa the third of March. It admits of another conftru&ion, that the ele&ion ought not to be declared,till all the returns from all the counties in the State were made, We must give the law a reasonable conftru&ion. It ap pears from the preamble, that the cle&ion (hould be declared the third of March, because it mentions that the Constitution Ihould begin to operate on the fourth of March, and the preamble im plies that the eleflion should be made known at that time. There is no particular time prescribed when the returns (hall be made; but it appears that there is a reference to the practice and usage of the State. Now by the law regulating the ele&ion of there* prefentatives in the State LegiHature, there appears to be no time limited for the returns of the ele&ion. It appears also that this conftru&ion was given by the who made their re turns previous to the fourth of March. It appears also, that the Governor had this in idea by fummoningtheCouncil. These obser vations were made yesterday, and they had weight on my mm • In answer to this conftruttion it may be said, that it is done away by the ast which declares that the Governor and C°" nc shall call up the votes from the whole of the returns of w thc counties, and therefore the fourth of March was not the proper time, unless the returns were all then made, which it is proha e was contemplated at the time of the pafling of the law. Itvvw appear that absurdities will follow from either of the conltruc tions. If you take the firft, it might so have happened that n» county may have made the returns. Would it then have been in quired that the Governor should declare the election ? or that Governor (hould decide on the votes of one county, if on) jj had returned? On the other hand to wait till all the returns 2 been made would be, equally absurd, because it would be m power of one county to defeatthe election. The cjueftion then is, whether the executive power has no discretion ; and whether he ought not to exercise thatde cre ' to carry the law into execution ?—lf this is admitted, question arises, whether the executive exercised that dilcretio <1 juftifiable manner. It appears that the Governor, preMO" the third of March, summoned the council and laid before the returns on that day. But it seems also that the ™ov. rliought it probable that all the returns would not thenibeina As on the third of March,there were only the returns of seven ties made : As it was merely matter of conftru&ion,it, a FP ea c cTe . that the Governor and Council had a right to exerC e r Lj e t iine tion, in poftpbning the determination for such a reafona as would allow the returns to be feni in ; and that this 15 thole cafcs where the executive may properly interpolc itsu
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers