Twitchell v. The Commonwealth/Opinion of the Court

by Salmon P. Chase

United States Supreme Court

74 U.S. 321

Twitchell  v.  The Commonwealth

'The question presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. . . . The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes.'

And, in conclusion, after a thorough examination of the several amendments which had then (1833) been adopted, he observes:

'These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to State governments. This court cannot so apply them.'

And this judgment has since been frequently reiterated, and always without dissent.

That they 'were not designed as limits upon the State governments in reference to their own citizens,' but 'exclusively as restrictions upon Federal power,' was declared in Fox v. Ohio, to be 'the only rational and intelligible interpretation which these amendments can have.' ^[1] And language equally decisive, if less emphatic, may be found in Smith v. The State of Maryland, ^[2] and Withers v. Buckley and others. ^[3]

In the views thus stated and supported we entirely concur. They apply to the sixth as fully as to any other of the amendments. It is certain that we can acquire no jurisdiction of the case of the petitioner by writ of error, and we are obliged, therefore to

REFUSE THE WRIT.

Notes

1. 5 Howard, 434.
2. 18 Id. 76.
3. 20 Id. 90.