The want of a provision for removing the judges on account of inability, or upon the address of the Legislature, which exists not only in England, but in some of the states of this Union, afforded ground of objection when the Federal Constitution was under discussion in the state conventions. But the most wise and considerate men of that period believed that such a provision could not be reduced to practice, or, in a government like ours, be more liable to abuse than productive of good consequences. A provision similar to that in the Constitution of New-York, which limits the duration of the highest judicial officers to the age of sixty years, was also complained of as an omission in the Federal Constitution; but it was admirably replied by General Hamilton, one of the ablest and most illustrious defenders of that instrument, that, "in a republic where fortunes are not affluent, and pensions not expedient, the dismission of men from stations in which they have served their country long and usefully-on which they depend for subsistence, and from which it will be too late to resort to any other occupation, should have some better apology to humanity than is to be found in the imaginary danger of a superannuated bench."

The Federal Judiciary being established, as I have explained, on principles essential to maintain that department in a proper state of independence, and to secure a pure and vigorous administration of the law, the Constitution proceeds to designate the objects of its jurisdiction.

It extends the judicial power of the United States to all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution and laws of the Union, and treaties made under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to contro

versies to which the United States are a party; to controversies between two or more states; between a state, when plaintiff, and citizens of another state; between citizens of the same state claiming land under grants from different states; and to controversies between citizens of the United States and foreign states, citizens, or subjects. As it stood originally, the judicial power of the United States extended to suits prosecuted against an individual state by a citizen of another state of the Union, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state. The states, however, were not willing to be arraigned as defendants before the Federal Courts at the instance of private persons; and it was subsequently declared, by an amendment to the Constitution, that the judicial power should not be construed to extend to any suit of law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

The propriety of vesting the jurisdiction, as it now stands, in the judicial department of the United States, seems to result necessarily from their union as one nation; and its exercise by the national tribunals may be considered requisite to the existence of the Federal Government. It may be profitable, however, at the present moment, to view this branch of our subject somewhat in detail, in particular reference to questions arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

The fitness of extending the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts to cases arising under the Constitution, in contradistinction to those arising under the laws passed in virtue of its authority, results from the obvious necessity of a constitutional method of giving efficacy to those provisions of the compact which neither require nor admit of an act on the part

of the National Legislature to sanction or enforce them. What, for instance, would avail the restrictions on the states, without some constitutional mode of compelling their observance? The individual states are prohibited from the performance of a variety of acts, some of which are incompatible with the objects and interests of the Union, and others with the principles of good policy. The imposition by state authority of duties on imported articles is an example of the first, and the emission of bills of credit a specimen of the second. Now, in the face of the experience afforded under the former confederation, it will hardly be pretended that such prohibitions would be scrupulously regarded without some effectual power in the government to restrain or correct their violation. The power must either be a direct negative on the state laws, vested in the executive power of the Union (which, indeed, was proposed as the alternative in the General Convention), or an authority in the Federal Courts to overrule such laws of the several states as contravene the National Constitution. The latter expedient was preferred by the Convention, and was unquestionably most acceptable to their constituents; and there is no third course that can be imagined, short of the doctrine of nullification, which assumes a power in any one state to suspend, if not to subvert, within its own limits, the acts and operations of every department of the Federal Government, though every other member of the Union admit their validity and submit to their authority.

As to extending the jurisdiction of the national courts to all cases arising under the laws of the United States, it seems impossible, by any argument or illustration, to render its propriety clearer than it appears from the mere statement of the question.

If there be such things as political axioms or truths in the science of government too plain to be disputed, the principle already stated, that "the judicial power must be coextensive with the power of legislation," must certainly be one of them; and in governments formed from the union of the people of so many separate and independent states, as well as of those states themselves, as one nation, organized under a written compact of government, the mere necessity of uniformity in the interpretation of the national laws is sufficient to decide the question. If the courts of the United States have not this paramount jurisdiction, it must remain without control in the tribunals of the states; and six-and-twenty independent judicatures, with final jurisdiction over the same kind of causes, arising under the same laws, would present a monstrous anomaly in judicial organization and procedure, from which nothing but contradiction and confusion could ensue. The people of the United States have declared that the Constitution and the laws, and all treaties made in pursuance of it, shall be the supreme law of the land; and that the judges in every state shall be bound by it," anything in the constitution and laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." Congress, no morethan the state legislatures, have power to pass laws repugnant to the Federal Constitution; because that Constitution is not only the paramount, but also the fundamental law; and those laws only which are passed in pursuance of the Constitution are declared to be supreme, in reference to the constitutions and laws of the states. Every act, therefore, of Congress, as well as of the state legislatures, and every part of the constitution of any state, which is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, is necessarily void. This we must regard as a clear and settled

principle of our national jurisprudence, unalterable by any authority but that from which the national compact is derived, and not liable to change even by that authority, except in the mode prescribed by the instrument itself. Now, as the judicial power of the Union is declared to extend to all cases arising under the Constitution, to that power it must necessarily belong, in cases wherein the question is judicially presented for decision, to determine what is the supreme law; and the judgment of the Supreme Court must be final and conclusive, because the Constitution invests that tribunal with the power to decide, and gives no appeal from its decision. But if an act of Congress admit of two interpretations, one of which brings it within, and the other presses it beyond the constitutional authority of Congress, it is the duty of the courts to adopt the former construction, because a presumption ought never to be indulged that Congress meant to exercise or usurp any unconstitutional authority.

Some perplexity exists in regard to the right of courts of justice to pronounce legislative acts void, on the ground of their unconstitutionality, from apprehension that the doctrine would establish a superiority of the judicial over the legislative power. As the subject is of great practical importance, a rapid survey of the grounds on which it was defended by our most eminent statesmen cannot be disadvantageous; especially as it exhibits a contemporaneous construction of the highest authority of that part of the Constitution. "There is no position," say the illustrious authors of "The Federalist," ""which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void." No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, which is the commis

K