- W k-J
Tarboroush, (Edgecombe County, X. C.) Tuesday, June 21, 1831.
i S.irlh-Cnroliii.1 Free Press"
IJV GEOIIGK HOWAltl),
Is published weekly, at 7'r:'j Dollars
... ',' V Cc; per year, if paid in ad-
ol
:;ia:i a year, a Wfnty-f:ve Cent per
Subscribers are at liberty to dis--.tiiitie
at any time, on giving notice
J,.i-i-i.t and paying arrears those resi
t jurat u distance must invariably pay in
a!vatx or giv2 a responsible reference
j:: th,s vicinity.
,ci t;.semeits, not exceeding 15 lines,
v.ili he inserted at 50 cents the first in
sertion, and 2 j cents each continuance.
Lji'..-;ri' r,nts J-hat rate for every 16
l;:K.v' Advertisements must be marked
tl,L number ot insertions required, or
tu.y will bf continued until otherwise
oirtAl. -Letters addressed to the
Alitor must be ost paid, or they may
n. t bo attended to.
"Copartnership.
rpllH undersigned having entered in
to co partnership under the firm of
Andrviv JlndcrHuu & Co.
Take this method ot" informing the
public, that they have taken the store
h . uh: formerly occupied by John IJ.
Maihewson &. Co. for the purpose of
cr.rrying on the
i encoring uusinessj
IS ALL ITS VAUIOUS BRANCHES.
And where they will he found at all
time?, ready to accommodate those
who m.iy favor them with their cus
tom. All those disposed to encourage
them, shall have their garments made
in the neatest manner and at the siioit
est notice.
We take this opportunity of infor
ming the public generally, that we
have reduced the prices on our work:
Coats that have heretofore been $7 for
making, we will make for $5, in the
most fashionable style; and other gar
ments in proportion. We therefore
hope, by our .strict attention to busi
ness, to merit a share of public pat
ronage. All orders to us from a dis
tance will he promptly attended to,
and executed with the utmost dispatch.
ANDRE IV ANDERSON,
E. C. MIX,
ROBERT H. MOODY.
Tsrbnro', Teh. 7, 1S31. 25
No Tariff of Prices.
FREE TRADE.
EarUicnwu? c, Looking-G lasses y $c.
THOMAS J. HARROW & CO.
Importers, 88 JValer-st. New- York,
i fFFEIt for sale, the largest and most
V complete assortment of Eartktn
ivare, Glass, China, filain and gilt EooA -tig-GluMes,
U'c. which the New-York
r.nrket will afford, comprising every
style and variety of the newest patterns.
Ti.ey return their most cordial thanks to
tuuir friends in the Southern States, for
their support in the persecution now car
rying oa against them, for their refusal to
jwn a combination in fixing one tanfl oi
prices for Crockery, throughout the
fade. It is mainly attributable to the in
fluence ol our Southern friends that we
iuvc been enabled to survive thus faa, in
this most tryinjr situation; exposed to the
combined influence and capital of the
""hole trade, endeavoring to effect our
ruin and expulsion from business. We
fledge ourselves to our friends to give
them every satisfaction in our power as
regards the qmdity of our goods, the ex
cellence cf our packers and the lowness
f our prices fur Cash or City Acceptan
ces; aad in return, solicit from them a
continuance of their patronage, and par
ticularly request those who have influ
ence with their friends to exert it in our
bthalf, as we trust the cause is one they
arc all interested in, and much benefit
will accrue to us from their friendly acts
in this way. h has been said, the Com
''.nation was broken up. As it regards
prices, this is true, and all, we think,
nends or fees will allow that we have
"fleeted this change; but we do assure
'Jr iriends, that at no period since we
commenced cur system of unshackled
prices were we in greater want of assist-
than at the present moment. This
j, Combination of men are leaving no means
untried for effecting our ruin, that they
may revive the old system: our credit
i rd character are assailed in every shape.
importations waylaid and stopped m
i "-y instance where threats arc sum
Vet to intimidate the manufacturers
:rm supply ine: us: in fine, no vexation
r trouble which the malice of men could
Gevisc has been neglected in this struggle
t0 subdue us. We once more call upon
every friend of a free trade to come up to
lr support, and pledge ourselves to give
T. J. BARROW cV CO.
8S IVater-st reei, above Old slip.
To tki
e Citizens of the 3d Conrrcs$ioiial Distrini nf V n
Pellow-Citizens:
coniidilCf WM-d th3t C,OSe f 3 CirCular' Ued to your
uit "it i ' ,"C !"e--- "-time.9 In my
. ex l Lite lwii " v rr
,awn iroin the (ith article of the Constitution, and the
U lOlh amendments. This opinion is also sustained by very hih au
; : the Supreme Court has. I think, fairly deduced from the authorities
in powers over the subjects commilled to their care. This being the caM
all will at mil thai they must he exclusive powers; and it follows of nece
ai.v, that ihey cannot he concurrent with the powers of the Slate -oveni
mcfU,s , vom t,ie doctrines here laid d.-wn, which I think incontrovertihU
seems to be f
9lh an
ihority
1 1 1 . . 1 . ...
.e c dI,nueu 10, mat alMhe povvecs of the General government are plenary o.
. ... uer ine suojects commilled to their care. This bcinir the case.
.... -
neces-
overti
u ,.;ii r.,n u.. .1 . . ' ,vW..i,UM,,iiuic,
....... . u.at me ouie governments are equally plenary and exclusive
within their proper sphere of agency as the General government. 1 wUh
here to be understood that each is plenary and exclusive in relation to the
other when acting within its own constitutional splrere, upon subjects appro
priately belonging to it. These principles seem to me to furnish a solution
to the difficulties in regard to the Judicial act. If all the powers of the Fe
deral government are plenary and exclusive, then it fullows necessarily that
the Judicial power is so. This being so, let me ask how could Congress
give this power or any of it concurrently between the State and Federal
courts. Yet this has been done without the slightest authority from the
Constitution. There is no greater source of erroV and often of real evil, than
the misuse or abuse of words: the word concurrent, in its proper iignilica
tion means running together, acting in conjunction, concomitant in agency j
&c. It must then be very plain, that the powers of the Federal amf Slate
governments, being as they are admitted to be, separate and distinct, cannot
pe concurrent cannot bejoint agents over any given subject, participating in
its management. If there is any meaning in human language, they cannot
be both separate and distinct, and yet conjoint or concurrent iu their action
over the subjects commilled lo their care and nranagoment. The Constitu
tion says:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall be vested in out Supreme Court,
and in such interior courts as Congress may from lime to time ordain and es
tablish."
What Judicial power is here meant? It must be Federal Judicial power,
because it is vested by ihc Constitution in Federal courts, to be exercised
by Federal Judges. And what part of this power is thus vested by the
Constitution? Is it all, or is it only a pari? No one can doubt a moment.
The words must mean all the Judicial power granted by the people through
the Constitution to the Federal government, constituting entirely one of its
three departments the If gislative, executive, and Jadiciul. The Constitu
tion itself vests, and thai too iu the same language, all three of these power?;
and evidently, of all three, vests the whole which investiture Congress can
not in the slightest degree change cr alter. If it can alter one, or any part
of any one of these powers, it may the Whole; and completely, in spile of
the Constitution which is the written will of the people, subvert or change
ihe government. Hut has not Congress undertaken in the Judicial act to do
precisely this? Most assuredly it has in many instances, and it is this very
thing which makes the 9th, 1 3th, 25th, and other sections objectionable, as
containing unconstitutional provisions. A very little examinaliwn into the
subject will satisfy any one that the whole difficulty in regard to the Judicial
act, (which lequires alteration and amendment by further legislation,) ori
ginated from forming several of ils sections, or parts of them, not upon the
Constitution, but upon Mr. Alex. Hamilton's doctrine of concurrent pow
ers, laid down in his S2d No. of the Federalist. His doctrines there laid
down arc such as evidently run into consolidation. He says:
"When in addition to this wc consider the State governments and the National
government as they truly are, in the light of kindred systems, and as fiatts of cue
whole, the inference seems to be conclusive, that the State courts would have con
current jurisdiction in all cases arising under the laws of the Union, where it was not
expressly prohibited."
And it is from this very doctrine "that he infers immediately after, the
right of appeal. lie says:
"Here another question occurs: What relation would subsist between the Na
tional and State Courts in these instances of concurrent jurisdiction? 1 answer, that,
an appeal would certainly lie from the latter, to the Supreme Court of the United
States."
Mr. Hamilton is nght as lo the consequence, it the jurisdiction is const!-
intionallv concurrent but here lies the great error, l ne lyonsuiution
grants to Congress all lis powers, congress eannoi exeieic uy umcia.
The Constitution has vested all the Judicial power in reuerai eouns, auu
yet by giving concurrent power to the Slate courts, a part of this same pow
er must have been vested by Congress, or considered so to be, or it could
not have been exercised there. And thus came tno ciaim oi apponaie juris
diction of the Supreme Court over a State court. I think the whole error
lies in Ihis doctrine ol concurrent powers, wnicn win oe lounu io uie uoe-
triue of consolidation. If Congress can make the two governments joint or
concurrent in any one oi ineir ueparimeius, u may i ,.& w..,
is it not absolute unqualified consolidation, making to all pracneai puiposes
tlip condition of the neorde
one ""overnmenir iuu uuw ici mc ".. . w -- . .
,.r j?,,,,.,. n! this limp liviner under governments ot this description?
IM clll V-uuni.. .v-o. 0 cj ,,r-ii r
i. : ,i Jawori- Cvmn tnn miieh government, win ine name oi
11 IS OppiCSolWU o.u.w.j ..w... n m I .U .
a reouhlican ginmf;nt avail us, if we have to suffer the same evils that
flow from a difl Jnt one? Those who have taken lor granieu, mat in wisn-
in? to alter or h ieal anv part ol tne juaiciai act, i
Ihe constitution powers of Ihe Supreme Court are much mistaken On
theeouliary, I think that act, if properly modified by further legislation,
would render several parts unnecessary; and but for having granted concur
rent inrisdiclion to the State courts, most probably the 25th section would
not have been passed, because it would have been entirely unnecessary. I
o A M tnl rrWizance of anv of the cases enumerated
the Constitution, all of which are exclusively vesieu . . cuca.
in
It m'lirht bealtoirether dispensed with.
WOU1U ine & Jin oouii r - . j. nr
. . r ,: tli vprv words ol the 2d S6C-
Kunnoe lor instance, msieau oi mat scuiuu ... .w-
suppose loi iuawi , ,m it not have been clear that
lion ol the 3d article naa oeeu suosuiuicM, - .
0,1 J L 1 .11 ....Unaprf orirrinallv to Federal cognizance? It certainly ap-
Iu'thislani sustained by the opinion of the Supreme Court
itself.
... i
what use would ttie XSW section uer
Suppose
linn of tl
these cases all belonged originally to
. . mn I,, iKic I um sustaiiK
pears Ti;':'; UAinn. the Chief Justice says:
ill u.c waov, w j o -t!jo : Q
ThP Constitution vests the whole Judicial power ;o tne r unucu o ? M.
" rrt and such inferior courts as Congress .uau, huiu utu w
111 Vlllb w-
...,
and establish. . .locrrlhps rarefullv the ca
rhot -numeration containea in me u
w. - :niP and wnicn u seems
innronriately taken unuer reuerai cu&m- .
appropriate y Sute Suppose this
ses
un
en
merat.on, winch ,s beautifo a d 'r f ou d .P
25th section i repeal, u. - Sunreme Court to
had been thought of by the framers of the Constitution, it could scarcely
have been overlooked. The beautiful and lucid enumeration alluded to,
contains the substance and matter of the whole Judicial power granted by
the Constitution, and seems evidently intended to be exclusive in the Fede
ral courts. This not only will appear upon inspection of the 3d article but
is shown by the language of the Supreme Court, and is still further
sustained by the rule of construing the Constitution, that none but granted
powers can be exercised; and if that be the case, Congress is not at liberty to
alter that very distribution or location of power made by the instrument it
self, because no such power is even hinted at, much less granted. It is quite
certain that Congress did not ordain and establish the Slate courts, nor could
it do so of right, or interfere iu any way either with their organization or
powers. It could not of course give any of the Federal Judicial powers to
them. IfC ongress could ordain or establish or create or alter the Judicial
department of a State government, it could do the same with the legislative
and executive; and miglu thus abolish, alter, or make the whole. It is
pl.tin, lhat ihe alteiation of the organization made by the Constitution of any
oi the departments of the Federal government, would be exercising an usur
ped power; a power which alone could be exercised by the people, or accor
ding to lhe method prescribed by them in the instrument. Yet this has
been done by the very act of giving concurrent powers, or vesting the Ju
dicial power belonging to the Federal government in State courts, as the Ju
dicial act does in several of its sections, and as must evidently have been
contemplated by the part of the 25th section, which I think objectionable
and ought to be repealed or modified, as I have said, to render appeals unne
cessary. My whole object would be to carry out the principle into prac
tice, a principle which 1 have long since avowed, of making the two depart
ments of power, the Federal and. State governments, as distinct and inde
pendent of each other, as the departments of either government are, the one
from the other. And I will appeal to those who have not been aware of my
real views, but which correspond with my doctrines long since avowed and
on record, whether lhe plan would not be practicable, so lo illustrate and ex
plain the subject, that each government could be kept to its own proper
sphere of action, without interfering with the other, lam aware that some
suppose that this would be giving too much power to the Federal govern
ment. Whether too much or loo little it would be doing precisely what the
Constitution requires and prescribes. It appears to me that all difficulty
might be removed by instituting if necessary, as Congress has the undoubt
ed right to do, a sub-district court in the districts already existing, for the
reception of such minor federal cases as have been permitted to be taken in
charge by State courts. And if still there were cases of such doubtful cha
racter, as to be not readily distinguished, as belonging either to Federal or
State cognizance, being few and not of great importance, give the option to
the parlies to go either into the Federal or State courts, but the decision to
be final. I cannot see what necessity there would then be for this consoli
dating doctrine of concurrent powers. The definition in the Constitution
makes all -the more important cases so plain, that I should not suspect any
one who had been promoted to a seat on the Bench, of incapacity to discri
minate them from those properly belonging to State cognizance; and I can
not see why the Slate Judges would desire to take in charge more than their
appropriate share of business, of which they have a plenty without taking
upon themselves the business of others.
Let us now examine some parts of the Judicial act, consisting of thirty-
five sections. The 9th section begins, without any direction from the Con
stitution, to make a part of the Judicial power vested by the Constitution in
Federal courts; exclusive of lhe State courts. And again, without the slight
est authority from the instrument, which says not a word on the subject,
gives concurrent jurisdiction as to other portions of this same power, ail of
which has been evidently vested m federal courts. In this section begins
that error which ends in, and is confirmed by that part of the 25th section,
which gives to the Supreme Court the right to set aside at its discretion, a
decision of a State court whenever it shall please to consider it proper fur
ine iouii is lo judge, hy a transcript ot tne record. And what curb, or re
striction, is thereon their discretion? Does not every one see lhat if this
power is permitted, the result ni3y be, as it has already been, in the
Hank cases of Maryland and Ohio, that the Court under this section may
abrogate any Stale laws they mayr choose to consider proper for their re
examination under the form of decisions of State courts because the State
laws, after being enacted, must be by the Judiciary expounded and applied;
and if ihey are stopped or altered, at this tage, is not this abrogating the
Faw? Sumjose. as is bcueved and admitted bv manv. that the Hank ol the
, , -
United States is unconstitutional haw will those making ihis admission re
concile the legality of the decisions "of the Supreme Court under the 25lh
section, in the cases above alluded io.' It is admitted, as 1 understand, by
some of the advocates of this appellate power, given, not by the Constitu
tion, but by Congress, that, the charter ot the Hank of the United States is
an unconstitutional act of Congress, and therefore not law. How then can
ihey reconcile the idea of keeping up this pretence for inordinate and unau
thorised power, when it is apparently so easy by repealing this objectiona
ble portion, as well as some others; and by luither legislation, to define and
settle the true limits of novver, both of the Federal and State Judiciaries?
Surely no one will pass so poor a compliment upon what is sometimes par
excellance, called the collected wisdom of the nation, as to say Congress has
not talent enough to do this.
The 9th section of the Judicial act undertakes to make a distinction be
tween exclusive and concurrent powers, by altering the distribution made
by the Constitution itself, vesting a part of lhat power, all of which has. been
vested in the Federal Courts, in Slate courts; placing them thus on a footing
with the interior federal courts, and suomiiting mem to tne same subordi
nation to the Supreme Court, and might as well carry out Mr. A. Hamilton's
notion, that there was no impediment to an appeal Irom State courts to sub
ordinate Federal, or as he calls them, "national tribunals."
If, as the Supreme Court has decided, in the case of Marbury against
Madison, it is unconstitutional for Congress to alter the distribution of Judi
cial power, made by the Constitution between the different Federal courts,
how can it be constitutional to alter that distribution by vesting a part of the
power in State courts? Any one who will look st the Constitution must see,
that this has been done without the least authority, and is surely as great a
vicJaiion of the Constitution as the other. Independently of this, the 9th
section also violates the distribution made by the Constitution, in the case of
consuls, by giving a jurisdiction to the District courts which by the Consti
tution is expressly original with the Supreme Court. The Constitution says:
ln all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers arid consuls, the Su
preme Court shall have original jurisdiction."
Hut notwithstanding this, the 9th section, io reference to the District
courts says:
"And shall also have jurisdiction, exclusively of the Courts of the several States,
of all suits against consuls or vice-consuls, except for offences of the above descrip
tion aforesaid."
The 1 ith section contains also objectionable matter, intermingling the
State and Federal authorities.
The 12th and 22d sections are supposed to be so arranged that some al
teration might be proper. They place the'State courts upon the footing of
inferior Federal courts.
(continued on the last page.)
Jan. 1831. 21