completely annihilate the state courts.” That great political prophet too well foresaw that this “defensive armour” would be completely taken from us, and the state judiciaries completely annihilated. The venerable G. Mason said[1] that there were many gentlemen in the United States who thought it best to have one great consolidated government, and that this was to be IMPERCEPTIBLY effected by means of the federal judiciary.
Against these great and virtuous characters the supreme court—without deigning to advert to them!—is pleased to array the testimony of Mr. Hamilton. This witness stands condemned where the rights of the states are concerned, by his well known preference of a consolidated government, and by his having been in eager pursuit[2] of the ratification of the constitution when he wrote his essays. They were written as it were in the heat of a controversy and his treatise is not therefore to be considered as a calm and temperate construction of the constitution. The court is fond of coupling the name of Mr. Madison with that of this gentleman as the reputed authors of that work, the Federalist; but it is unquestionable that Mr. Hamilton wrote exclusively the sections in relation to judicial power. The passage quoted from that book by the court, to show the existence of the right of appeal in this case, is inconsistent with the opinions of Mr. Madison as stated to have been given in the Virginia Convention; and most probably the latter gentleman from his distant residence had not seen them until they were published. The authority of this passage is also much weakened by another from the same gentleman, which unquestionably proves too much[3]. It
