clause in the constitution, which contains the special delegation of it. Nor is it enough for the court to say or even prove, that it is highly reasonable, that quoad this power also the United States should form but one nation. That is an enquiry proper for the next convention called to amend the constitution, or for the consideration of the people of the United States, but with which the court has certainly nothing to do.
The ideas entertained on this point at the time of adopting the constitution are in utter conflict with that now holden by the supreme court. They were so entertained in the Virginia Convention both by the friends and enemies of the Constitution. Mr. Pendleton whose authority, especially on subjects of this nature, is and ought to be great, says:[1] that it was probable the first experiment would be to appoint the state judges to have the inferior federal jurisdiction. Mr. Madison said[2] that it will be in the power of congress to vest the inferior federal jurisdiction in the state courts. Mr. Mason said[3] that this jurisdiction may be vested in the state courts. These expressions, “appoint,” “have” and “vest” are entirely inconsistent with the idea that the state courts had that jurisdiction before. So Mr. Grayson said explicitly,[4] that there is no connection between the state and federal courts. Again he says[5] that the state judges form the principal defense of the rights of the states and that Congress should not take from them their “only defensive armour.” Mr. Henry indeed says that “by construction, the supreme court will
