A Native of Virginia, Article III

Sect. 1. The judicial power of the United States ſhall b• veſted in one Supreme Court, and in ſuch inferior Courts as th• Congreſs may from time to time ordain and eſtabliſh. Th• Judges, both of the ſupreme and inferior Courts, ſhall hold their offices during good behaviour, and ſhall, at ſtated times, receiv• for their ſervices, a compenſation, which ſhall not be deminiſhe• during their continuance in office.

Sect. 2. The judicial power ſhall extend to all caſes, in la• and equity, ariſing under this Conſtitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which ſhall be made, under their authority; to all caſes affecting Ambaſſadors, other publi• Miniſters and Conſuls; to all caſes of admiralty and maritime juriſdiction; to controverſies to which the United States ſhal• 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.

In all caſes affecting Ambaſſadors, other public Miniſters, and Conſuls, and thoſe in which a State ſhall be a party, the Supreme Court ſhall have original juriſdiction. In all the other caſe before mentioned, the Supreme Court ſhall have appellate juriſdiction, both as to law and fact with ſuch exceptions, and under ſuch regulations as the Congreſs ſhall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in caſes of impeachment, ſhall be by jury; and ſuch trial ſhall be held in the State where the ſaid crimes ſhall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial ſhall be at ſuch place or places, as the Congreſs may by law have directed.

NO part of the Conſtitution ſeems to have been ſo little underſtood, or ſo purpoſely miſconſtrued, as this article. Its enemies have muſtered all their forces againſt the Federal Court; and have loudly ſounded the trumpet, for the benevolent purpoſe of alarming the good people of Virginia, with the fears of viſionary danger and imaginary oppreſſion. They have told them the Federal Court, like Aron's rod, would ſwallow up all the judiciary authority of the reſpective States. That a citizen of Virginia may be forced to Philadelphia for a debt of 5l. although it was contracted with a fellow citizen: And, above all, that the trial by jury is not preſerved. In a word, it is the Federal Court that is to be made the great inſtrument of tyranny.

THESE indeed would be ſerious objections were they well founded.

IT is on all hands admitted, that a Federal Court is neceſſary, for a variety of purpoſes, and under a variety of circumſtances.

THE only queſtion then is, whether the enumeration of the caſes aſſigned to the Federal Court, by this article, is likely to produce oppreſſion? Or if there be any ground to apprehend that Congreſs will not, by law provide a remedy for all probable hardſhips, and render the federal juriſdiction convenient to every part of the United States?

THERE has been no objection raiſed to the Federal Court having original juriſdiction, in all caſes reſpecting public Miniſters, and where a State may be a party; and theſe are the only caſes wherein it has original juriſdiction. In theſe caſes, in controverſies between two or more States, and between a State and citizens of another State, and between citizens of the •ame claiming lands under grants of different States, the preſent Congreſs have the right of determining. Here the judiciary is blended in an eminent degree with the Legiſlative authority; a ſtrong reaſon, among many others, for new modeling that unſkilful organized body.

THE Convention ſenſible of this defect, has wiſely aſſigned the cognizance of theſe and other controverſies to a proper tribunal, a Court of Law.

AMONG theſe controverſies, there is but one poſſible caſe where a diſpute between two citizens of the ſame State can be carried, even by appeal, to the Federal Court; and that is, when they claim the ſame land under grants from different States. As their title is derived through States, this caſe is preciſely within the reaſon which applies to controverſies wherein two States are parties.

NOTWITHSTANDING this, we are told that in the moſt ordinary caſes, a citizen of Virginia may be dragged within the appellate juriſdiction of the Federal Court, although the tranſaction which gave riſe to the controverſy originated between fellow citizens. This, it is ſaid, may be effected, by aſſigning a bond, for inſtance, given by one fellow citizen to another, either to a foreigner or a citizen of another State. To this I anſwer, that ſuch aſſignment would not be attended with any ſuch conſequence; becauſe it is a principle in law, that the aſſignee ſtands in the place of the aſſignor; and is neither in a better nor a worſe condition. It is likewiſe aſſerted, that if two citizens of the ſame State claim lands lying in a different State, •hat their ſuit may be carried to the Federal Court for final de•ermination. This aſſertion is equally groundleſs. For this being a local action, it muſt be determined in the State where•n the lands lie.

AND I repeat it again, becauſe it cannot be too often repeated, that but one poſſible caſe exiſts, where a controverſy between citizens of the ſame State can be carried into the Federal Court. How then is it poſſible that the Federal Court can •ver ſwallow up the State juriſdictions, or be converted to the purpoſes of oppreſſion.

SEVERAL reaſons occur why the Federal Court ſhould poſſeſs an appellate juriſdiction in controverſies between foreigners and citizens, and between the citizens of different States. A foreigner ſhould have the privilege of carrying his ſuit to the Federal Court, as well for the ſake of juſtice, as from political motives. Were he confined to ſeek redreſs in the tribunal of that State, wherein he received the injury, he might not obtain it, from the influence of his adverſary; and by giving him this additional and certain means of obtaining juſtice, foreigners will be encouraged to trade with us, to give us credit, and to employ their capitals in our country. Then controverſies muſt for the moſt part ariſe from commercial tranſactions, by which the bulk of the people can be ſeldom effected. The firſt part of this reaſoning equally applies to controverſies between citizens of different States. Beſides, were the juriſdiction of the Federal Court not coextenſive with the government itſelf, as far as foreigners are concerned, a controverſy between individuals might produce a national quarrel, which commencing in repriſals, would probably terminate in war. Suppoſe a ſubject of France or Great Britain ſhould complain to the Miniſter reſiding at the ſeat of Congreſs, that 〈◊〉 was impoſſible to obtain juſtice in a Court of Law, in Virginia, for inſtance. The Miniſter repreſents the matter to hi• Court. That Court will apply to the Congreſs, not to th• individual State, for redreſs. Congreſs replies, we lamen• that it is not in our power to remedy the evil; but we hav• no authority over the juriſprudence of the State. Is it probable that ſuch an anſwer will be ſatisfactory to powerful nations? Will they not ſay we muſt take that redreſs by forc• which your feeble government denies us? We are unde• the neceſſity of ſeizing American property wherever we ca• lay our hands upon it, till the juſt demands of our ſubject are ſatisfied.

THOSE objectors who are ſo much alarmed for the trial by jury, ſeem little acquainted either with the origin or uſe o• that celebrated mode of trial.

I WILL take leave to inform them, that by our laws a variety of important cauſes are daily determined without the intervention of a jury, not only in the Court of Chancery, but in thoſe of common law; and that by ſeveral of our acts of Aſſembly, the General Court has a power of aſſeſſing fines as high as 500l. for inconſiderable delinquencies, without the intervention of a••ry, even to find the fact.

AS I have before obſerved, theſe cauſes will be from the nature of things, generally mercantile diſputes; muſt be matters of account, which will be referred to commiſſioners, as is the practice of all common law Courts in ſimilar caſes. Whenever it may be neceſſary that the facts ſhould be ſtated, no doubt they will be found by a jury of the State, from whence the cauſe is carried; and will be made a part of the record.

IN criminal caſes, the trial by jury is moſt important. In criminal caſes the Conſtitution has eſtabliſhed it unequivocal•y. But in having only recognized this trial in criminal, it by no means follows that it takes it away in civil caſes: And •e may fairly preſume, that by the law which the Congreſs will make to compleat the ſyſtem of the Federal Court, it will •e introduced, as far as it ſhall be found practicable, and applicable to ſuch controverſies as from their nature are ſubjects proper to be determined in that Court.

ALL civilized ſocieties have found it neceſſary to puniſh a •ariety of offences, with the loſs of life. The life of man is a •erious forfeiture: Our law has therefore humanely and juſt•y ſaid, that it ſhall not be affected, but by the unanimous opinion of twelve men. In a political view, this mode of tri•l, in State proſecutions, is of ſtill greater importance. The •hief Magiſtrate, or the Legiſlature itſelf, of a republic, is as ••able to perſonal prejudice, and to paſſion, as any King in Europe; and might proſecute a bold writer, or any other per•on, who had become obnoxious to their reſentment, with as •uch violence and rigour. What ſo admirable a barrier to •efend the innocent, and protect the weak from the attacks 〈◊〉 power, as the interpoſition of a jury? In this reſpect, the •rial by jury may well be called the palladium of liberty.

THE framers of the Conſtitution viewing it in this light, •lthough it was impoſſible to enter minutely into the ſubject of the Federal Court, and arrange it fully, took care to de•lare that, in criminal caſes, the trial by jury ſhould be pre••rved, leſt we ſhould have had ſome ground of uneaſineſs upon that important point.

I MUST farther obſerve, that the Federal Court has no ju•ſdiction over any offences except ſuch as are againſt the 〈◊〉: And the criminal is to be tried in the State where be fact is committed.

IT is aſked, why has not the Conſtitution more accurately defined the juriſdiction of the Federal Court, more clearly aſcertained its limits, and more fully pointed out the modes o• trial?

TO this it may be anſwered, that the out-lines of the piece are traced with ſufficient accuracy: That to have entered minutely into this ſubject, to have filled it with all its parts would have employed almoſt as much time as framing the Conſtitution itſelf, and would have ſpun out the work to a tedious length. In that caſe the Convention muſt have aſcertained the number of inferior Courts neceſſary, the number o• Judges, and other officers, with their ſalaries, the times of holding the Federal Courts, the duration of their terms; in what caſes the trial ſhall be by jury, in what not, with an infinite variety of circumſtances, the introduction of which in a ſyſtem of government, would have made a ſtrange appearance. They therefore properly left to the Congreſs the power of organizing by law the Federal Court: Well knowing that at leaſt eight of the States muſt, from their local ſituation, concur in rendering it convenient to the whole.

Sect. 3. Treaſon againſt the United States, ſhall conſiſt only in levying war againſt them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No perſon ſhall be convicted of treaſon unleſs on the teſtimony of two witneſſes to the ſame over• act, or on confeſſion in open Court.

The Congreſs ſhall have full power to declare the puniſhment •f treaſon, but no attainder of treaſon ſhall work corruption of •lood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the perſon at•ained.

THIS ſection is equally humane and juſt.