has long been a matter determined on by certain influential characters in this country who are aiming
gradually at monarchy. Federal jurisprudence has
aimed a blow at the sovereignty of the individual States,
and the late decision of the Supreme tribunal of the
Union has placed the ridgepole on the wide-extended
fabrick of consolidation. The representatives of the
free citizens of the independent States will, no doubt,
cherish the spirit of investigation and remonstrate on this subject with wisdom and firmness."[1] A Federalist paper in Massachusetts remarked editorially that "the decision has excited great apprehension in some. . . . Many pieces have already appeared in the public papers on the subject, some of which at least are expressed more to the passions than to the reason."[2]
- ↑ National Gazette, June 1, 1708; BoHtm OoMdie, Aug. 5, 1793.
- ↑ Salem Gazette, July 23, 1708. This paper was one of the few which published Chief Justice Jay's opinion in full, sajring: "Jay appears to have investigated the subject with great coolness, candor and regard to the rights of dtiiens." The Gazette cf the United States, Aug. 10, 14, 17, 1703, also printed the opinion in full. Most of the papers, however, printed only a short summary. An interesting complaint as to this failure of publicity appeared in a letter to the National Gazette, Aug. 10, 1708: "Mr. Freneau. I have heard nothing more regretted by the best friends of our country, than the manner adopted on publishing the opinions of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States in the most important question which ever did, or ever will, come before that Judicature, vis. the suability ot a State in that Court by a citizen of another State. So just, so wise, so important a decision could not have been made too public; the respective opinions of the Judges ought to have been inserted at large in all the newspapers throughout the continent ; and this would undoubtedly have been the case, had not a copyright been made of them. Good policy would have induced an unlimited publication, but a more effectual mode could not have been adopted, than the one chosen, to prevent these important opinions from being read by the great body of the people : a large pamphlet, price 50 cents, was made of them and claimed as a copyright, in order to prevent their being republished in the gazettes, whereas they ought to have been public property, that they might be published in a six penny pamphlet and in all the newspapers, in order that the great body of citizens might be informed of the great principles of this important decision. As an individual citizen, I hope it is not yet too late ; and that the Judges at their ensuing session will direct their opinions at large to be published in the newspapers of your dty, that the claim of a copyri^t therein may be withdrawn, and that public notice therecrf may be given to the end that the people may have the necessary information whereby to judge of the meditated alteration in the Constitution of the United States by the enemies of equality. For my own part, I have never yet heard a good reason assigned, why a fraudulent State should not be amenable to justice, as wdl as a fraudulent individual, for such we know there are."
