decisions in favor of its own jurisdiction, on the point of sustaining an appeal from a state court, have been assented to by “statesmen and legislators” of our country, and “with a single exception” by the courts of “every” state in the Union, whose judgments have been revised. It has not yet been shown how many of the states have had their judgments so revised. As for the “statesmen,” I suppose that Mr. Hamilton is chiefly referred to by the court. I leave him upon what has been already said, and only adding that he has been greatly outweighed on this point by the great and veneralle characters, whose opinions have been quoted. As for the “legislators” referred to by the court, none are particularized, but those of the congress of 1789, and their authority has been condemned by the supreme court itself, as I have already stated. As for the judges in general, before whom this matter may have come, it is well known how prone all men are to bend the knee to to superior power. The courts of small states cannot be well expected to array themselves, almost under any circumstances, against the supreme court of the United States; and as for the larger states it is a great undertaking for even their courts. Perhaps, too, the cases have not generally occurred in the state courts. Five and twenty years had ensued since the adoption of the constitution, before this question presented itself in the supreme court of Virginia. Prior to that time, that court could only have come at the question by a feigned case, as was done (as Judge Johnson in" forms us,) by the supreme court of the United States, in the famous Yazoo cause brought before it. The day of retribution may yet, however, come around, and the rights of the states, involved in those of their courts, resumed. Unless it be so we may bid a final adieu to the fond idea of a federal
