the national

dence.

Progress of I have now finished the second general division of this jurispru- course of lectures, relating to the government and constitutional jurisprudence of the United States. Though I have considered the subject in a spirit of free and liberal inquiry, as the series of decisions in the federal courts have been brought under examination, I have uniformly felt, and it has been my invariable disposition to inculcate, a strong sentiment of deference and respect for the judicial authorities of the Union. No point or question of any moment touch

ing the construction of the powers of the government, *440 and which has received an authoritative determina

tion, has been intentionally omitted. There are several important constitutional questions which remain yet to be settled; but if we recur back to the judicial annals of the United States since the year 1800, we shall find that many of the most interesting discussions which had arisen, and which were of a nature to affect deeply the tranquillity of the nation, have auspiciously terminated.

The definition of direct taxes within the intendment of the constitution; the extent of the power of congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states; the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies; the power of congress over the militia of the states; the power of exclusive legislation over districts and ceded places; the mass of implied powers incidental to the express powers of congress; such as the power to institute and protect an incorporated bank, to lay a general and indefinite embargo, and to give to the United States, as a creditor, priority of payment, have all received elaborate discussion in the Supreme Court, and they have, to a certain extent, been ascertained and defined by judicial decisions. So, also, the extent of the constitutional prohibitions upon the states not to pass ex post facto laws; and not to pass laws impairing the obligation of con

question was discussed in a masterly manner by Ch. J. Sharkey, in the case of Brien v. Williamson, decided in the high court of errors and appeals of the state of Mississippi, in March, 1843, in favour of the construction and effect already given to the constitution of that state by the state courts, and in opposition to that given in the case of Groves v. Slaughter. The case of Cotton v. Brien, 6 Robinson, Louis. R. 115, is to the same effect as the decision in Mississippi.

contracts; and not to impede or control by taxes, or grants, or any other exercise of power, the lawful authorities, or institutions, or rights and privileges depending on the constitution and laws of the United States, has been explored and declared, by a series of determinations, which have contributed, in an eminent degree, to secure and consolidate the Union, and to elevate the dignity and enlarge the influence of the national government.

The power of the President to remove all executive officers in his sound discretion, has been settled, not indeed judicially, but perhaps as effectually, by the declared sense of the legislature, and the uniform acquiescence and practice of the government. The absolute and uncontrollable effi- *441 cacy of the treaty-making power, has also been definitively established, after a struggle against it on the part of the House of Representatives, which, at one time, threatened to disturb the very foundations of the constitution.

The comprehensive claims of the judicial power, as being co-extensive with all cases that can arise under the constitution and laws and treaties of the Union, have, in several instances, been powerfully and successfully vindicated. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, over the judgments and decrees of the state courts, under certain circumstances, was defined with great accuracy and precision in the 25th section of the act of 1789, establishing the judicial courts; and the free and independent exercise of that jurisdiction, so essential to the maintenance of the authority and efficiency of the government of the United States, in criminal as well as in civil cases, has been hitherto happily sustained. The means of enforcing obedience, when not voluntarily rendered, to the decisions of this appellate jurisdiction, have not been required to be practically applied; and therefore it is a question which the court has not thought it incumbent on them, as yet, to decide, whether the exercise of that jurisdiction would permit compulsory process to the state courts, with the ordinary methods of enforcing process. The act of congressa provided only that on appeal from the judgment or decree of a state court, the writ of error should have the same effect, as if the

judgment or decree had been rendered or passed in a Circuit Court, and the proceeding upon a reversal should be the same, except that the Supreme Court, instead of remanding the cause for a final decree, may, at their discretion, if the cause shall have been once remanded before, proceed to a final decision. of the same, and award execution. And, with respect #442 to other branches of the judicial power, it may be generally observed, that the extensive sway of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; the character of the parties necessary to give cognizance to the federal courts; the faith and credit which are to be given in each state to the records and judicial proceedings in every other state; the sovereignty of congress over all its territories, without the bounds of any particular state; and the entire and supreme authority of all the constitutional powers of the nation, when coming in collision with any of the residuary or asserted powers of the states, have all been declared (as we have seen in the course of these lectures) by an authority which claims our respect and obedience.

In the first ten or twelve years after the institution of the national judiciary, or from 1790 to 1801, the scanty decisions of the Supreme Court are almost all to be found in the third volume of Dallas's Reports. The first great and grave question which came before them, was that respecting the liability of a state to be sued by a private creditor; and it is a little remarkable, that the court, in one of its earliest decisions, should have assumed a jurisdiction which the authors of the Federalist had a few years before declared to be without any colour of foundation. During the period I have mentioned, the federal courts were chiefly occupied with questions eoncerning their admiralty jurisdiction, and with political and national questions growing out of the revolutionary war, and the dangerous influence and action of the war of the French revolution upon the neutrality and peace of our country. It was during this portion of our judicial history, that the principles of the doctrines of expatriation, of ex post facto laws, of constitutional taxes, and of the construction and obligation of the treaty of 1783, upon the rights of the British creditors, were ably discussed and firmly declared.

The reports of Mr. Cranch commenced with the year 1801, and the nine volumes of those reports cover the business of

a very active period, down to the year 1815. The *Supreme Court was occupied with many great and *443 momentous questions, and especially during that portion of the time in which the United States had abandoned their neutral and assumed a belligerent character. It is curious to observe in these reports the rapid cultivation and complete adoption of the law and learning of the English admiralty and prize courts, notwithstanding those courts had been the constant theme of complaint and obloquy in our political discussions for the fifteen years preceding the war. In the last three volumes of Mr. Cranch, the court was constantly dealing with great questions, embracing the rights and the policy of nations; and the prize and maritime law, not of England only, but of all the commercial nations of Europe, was suddenly introduced, and deeply and permanently interwoven with the municipal law of the United States. We perceive, also, in these volumes, the constant growth and accumulation of cases on commercial law generally, and relating to policies of insurance, negotiable paper, mercantile partnerships, and the various customs of the law merchant. The court was likewise busy in discussing and settling important principles growing out of the limited range of other matters of federal cognizance, and relating to the law of evidence, to frauds, trusts and mortgages. They were engaged also with the doctrine of the limitation of suits, the contract of sale, and with the more enlarged subjects of domicil, of the lex loci, of neutrality, and of the numerous points of international law.

By the time of the commencement of Mr. Wheaton's Reports, in 1816, the decisions of the Supreme Court had embraced so many topics of public and municipal law, and those topics had been illustrated by so much talent and learning, that, for the first time in the history of this country, we were enabled to perceive the broad foundations and rapid growth of a code of national jurisprudence. That code has been growing and improving ever since, and it has now become a solid and magnificent structure; and it seems destined, at no very distant period of time, to cast a shade over the *444 less elevated, and perhaps we must add, the less attractive and ambitious systems of justice in the several states. The most interesting parts of Mr. Wheaton's Reports

are those which contain the examination of those great constitutional questions which we have been reviewing; and I cannot conceive of any thing more grand and imposing in the whole administration of human justice, than the spectacle of the Supreme Court sitting in solemn judgment upon the conflicting claims of the national and state sovereignties, and tranquillizing all jealous and angry passions, and binding together this great confederacy of states in peace and harmony, by the ability, the moderation, and the equity of its decisions. There are several reasons why we may anticipate the still increasing influence of the federal government, and the continual enlargement of the national system of law in magnitude and value. The judiciary of the United States has an advantage over many of the state courts, in the tenure of the office of the judges, and the liberal and stable provision for their support. The United States are, by these means, fairly entitled to command better talents, and to look for more firmness of purpose, greater independence of action, and brighter displays of learning. The federal administration of justice has a manifest superiority over that of the individual states, in consequence of the uniformity of its decisions, and the universality of their application. Every state court will naturally be disposed to borrow light and aid from the national courts, rather than from the courts of other individual states, which will probably never be so generally respected and understood. The states are multiplying so fast, and the reports of their judicial decisions are becoming so numerous, that few lawyers will be able or willing to master all the intricacies and anomalies of local law, existing beyond the boundaries of their own state. Twenty-six independent state courts of final jurisdiction over the same ques*445 tions, arising upon the same general *code of common and of equity law, must necessarily impair the symme

try of that code.

The danger to be apprehended is, that students will not have the courage to enter the complicated labyrinth of so many systems, and that they will, of course, entirely neglect them, and be contented with a knowledge of the law of their own state, and the law of the United States, and then resort for further assistance to the never-failing fountains of European wisdom.