The Life of John Marshall - LightNovelsOnl.com
You're reading novel online at LightNovelsOnl.com. Please use the follow button to get notifications about your favorite novels and its latest chapters so you can come back anytime and won't miss anything.
[397] The Jay Treaty. See vol. II, 113-15, of this work.
[398] 7 Cranch, 627.
[399] _Ib._ 631.
[400] _Ib._ 632.
[401] For mandate see 4 Munford, 2-3.
[402] March 31, April 1 to April 6, 1814. (4 Munford, 3.)
[403] _Ib._ 58.
[404] 4 Munford, 7.
[405] _Ib._ 8-9.
[406] _Ib._ 11.
[407] _Ib._ 12.
[408] 4 Munford, 15.
[409] _Ib._ 133.
[410] _Ib._ 38.
[411] _Ib._ 54.
[412] Jefferson to Roane, Oct. 12, 1815, _Works_: Ford, XI, 488-90.
[413] Roane to Jefferson, Oct. 28, 1815, _Branch Hist. Papers_, June, 1905, 131-32.
[414] The employment of these expensive lawyers is final proof of Hunter's financial resources.
[415] 1 Wheaton, 317, 318.
[416] _Ib._ 324.
[417] _Ib._ 326-27.
[418] The sections of the Const.i.tution pertaining to this dispute are as follows:
"Article III, Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
"Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Const.i.tution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Amba.s.sadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
[419] 1 Wheaton, 328.
[420] _Ib._ 337-38.
[421] _Ib._ 339.
[422] _Ib._ 341.
[423] 1 Wheaton, 343-44.
[424] _Ib._ 351.
[425] _Ib._ 355.
[426] _Ib._ 360.
[427] 1 Wheaton, 362.
[428] Marshall to his brother, July 9, 1822, MS.
Parts of this long letter are of interest: "Although Judge White [of the Winchester court] will, of course, conform to the decision of the court of appeals against the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme court, & therefore deny that the opinion in the case of Fairfax & Hunter is binding, yet he must admit that the supreme court is the proper tribunal for expounding the treaties of the United States, & that its decisions on a treaty are binding on the state courts, whether they possess the appellate jurisdiction or not.... The exposition of any state law by the courts of that state, are considered in the courts of all the other states, and in those of the United States, as a correct exposition, not to be reexamined.
"The only exception to this rule is when the statute of a state is supposed to violate the const.i.tution of the United States, in which case the courts of the Union claim a controuling & supervising power. Thus any construction made by the courts of Virginia on the statute of descents or of distribution, or on any other subject, is admitted as conclusive in the federal courts, although those courts might have decided differently on the statute itself. The principle is that the courts of every government are the proper tribunals for construing the legislative acts of that government.
"Upon this principle the Supreme court of the United States, independent of its appellate jurisdiction, is the proper tribunal for construing the laws & treaties of the United States; and the construction of that court ought to be received every where as the right construction. The Supreme court of the United States has settled the construction of the treaty of peace to be that lands at that time held by British subjects were not escheatable or grantable by a state.... I refer particularly to Smith v The State of Maryland 6th Cranch Jackson v Clarke 3 Wheaton & Orr v Hodgson 4 Wheaton. The last case is explicit & was decided unanimously, Judge Johnson a.s.senting.
"This being the construction of the highest court of the government which is a party to the treaty is to be considered by all the world as its true construction unless Great Britain, the other party, should controvert it. The court of appeals has not denied this principle. The dicta of Judge Roane respecting the treaty were anterior to this const.i.tutional construction of it."
[429] See vol. III, chap. X, of this work.
[430] 1 Wheaton, 362-63.
[431] Johnson's opinion was published in the _National Intelligencer_, April 16, 1816, as an answer to Roane's argument. (Smith in _Branch Hist. Papers_, June, 1905, 23.)
[432] Story, I, 277.
[433] _Annals_, 14th Cong. 1st Sess. 194, 231-33.
A bill was reported March 22, 1816, increasing the salaries of all government officials. The report of the committee is valuable as showing the increased cost of living. (_Ib._)
[434] Nearly three years after the decision of Martin _vs._ Hunter's Lessee, Story writes that the Justices of the Supreme Court are "_starving_ in splendid poverty." (Story to Wheaton, Dec. 9, 1818, Story, I, 313.)
[435] Story to White, Feb. 26, 1816, Story, I, 278; and see Story to Williams, May 22, 1816, _ib._ 279.
[436] Ambler: _Sectionalism in Virginia_, 103.
CHAPTER IV
FINANCIAL AND MORAL CHAOS
