great publicity in newspapers throughout the States,
it seems to have aroused no opposition to the Federal
Courts; and though, thirty years later, the right of
these Courts to declare a State statute to be invalid
was hotly attacked by many States, the exercise of
this right in 1792 was accepted without protest by the
very State which, five years before, had sought to
impeach its State Judges for holding a State law
invalid ; ^ and its acquiescence was expressed formally
(as described by contemporary papers) as follows:
- In conformity to a decision of the Circuit Court,
the Lower House of Assembly voted on Wednesday that they would not grant to any individual an exemp- tion from arrests and attachments for his private debts, for any term of time/'* Following this decision in Champion v. Dickason holding a Rhode Island State law unconstitutional, the Federal Circuit Courts pro- ceeded to exercise this judicial power in a series of cases involving statutes of other States; in 179S, the validity of a Connecticut statute was involved in a case ; *
Gazette (Mass.). June 26, 1792; New York Daily Advertiaer, June 22, 1702; Connecticut Journal, June 22, 1792, and many other newspapers. One month before this decision, the Federal Circuit Court sitting in Pennsyl- vania (Judges Wilson, Blair, and District Judge Fetm) had decided a case involv- ing the validity oi a statute of that State ; but had held it not violative of the Fed- eral Constitution. See Collet v. CoUel, 2 Dallas, 294; Oazette of the United StaUs, May 2, 1792; New York DaOy Advertuer, May 2, 1792. ^ In 1787, when the Judges of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island held a legal tender paper money statute unconstitutional in Trevett v. Weeden, the Rhode Is> land Legiriature attempted to impeach the Judges; but the requisite vote was not secured. Four years later, in 1791, after the adq>tion of the Federal Consti- tution, the Legislature actually acquiesced in judicial actica holding the legal ten- der statute invalid ; and (as stated in the newspapers), a decision having been given by a State Court "on the principle that by the adoption of the Constitution that act was virtually repealed, a petition was therefore presented for the interposition of the Legislature; but as the House of Representatives refused to receive the petition, it must be inferred as the sense of the Legislature that the^ct was super- seded by the adoption of the Constitution and that it has thereby become null and void." Providence Oazette, July 9, 1791.
- Providence Ocuette, June 28, 1792.
- Connecticut Courant, Oct. 7, 1793. "The cause, which involves the question
whether a protection granted by the Lq^lature of the State . . . (which pro- tection was to continue no longer than during the session) was valid and sufficient
