shall make any thing but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts, or pass a law impairing the obligation of contracts. If Congress shall not have passed a law, providing for the removal of such a suit to the courts of the United States, must not the State court proceed to hear, and determine it? Can a mere plea in defence be, of itself, a bar to further proceedings, so as to prohibit an inquiry into its truth, or legal propriety, when no other tribunal exists, to which judicial cognizance of such cases is confided? Suppose an indictment for a crime in State court, and the defendant should allege in his defence, that the crime was created by an ex post facto act of the State, must not the State court, in the exercise of a jurisdiction, which has already rightfully attached, have a right to pronounce on the validity, and sufficiency of the defence? It would be extremely difficult, upon any legal principles, to give a negative answer to these inquiries. Innumerable instances of the same sort might be stated, in illustration of the position; and unless the State courts could sustain jurisdiction in such cases, this clause of the sixth article would be without meaning or effect; and public mischiefs, of a most enormous magnitude, would inevitably ensue.

§ 369. It must, therefore, be conceded, that the Constitution not only contemplated, but meant to provide for, cases within the scope of the judicial power of the United States, which might yet be brought before State tribunals. It was foreseen, that, in the exercise of their ordinary jurisdiction, State courts would, incidentally, take cognizance of cases arising under the Constitution, the laws, and treaties, of the United States. Yet, to all these cases the judicial power, by the very terms of the Constitution, is to extend. It cannot extend, by original jurisdiction, if that has already rightfully and exclusively attached in the State courts, which (as has been already shown) may occur; it must, therefore, extend by appellate jurisdiction, or not at all. It would seem to follow, that the appellate power of the United States must, in such cases, extend to State tribunals; and, if in such cases, there is no reason, why it should not equally attach upon all others.

§370. It is manifest, that the Constitution has proceeded upon a theory of its own, and given and withheld powers according to the judgement of the American people, by whom it was adopted. We can only construe its powers, and cannot here inquire into the policy, or principles, which induced the grant of them. The Constitution has presumed, (whether rightly or wrongly, we do not here inquire,) that State attachments, State prejudices, State jealousies, and State interests, might sometimes obstruct, or control, or be supposed to obstruct, or control, the regular administration of justice. Hence, in controversies between States; between citizens of different States; between citizens, claiming grants under different States; between a State and its citizens, or foreigners; and between citizens and foreigners; it enables the parties, under the authority of Congress, to have the controversies heard, tried, and determined, before the National tribunals. No other reason, than that, which has been stated, can be assigned, why some, at least, of these cases should not have been left to the cognizance of the State courts. respect to the other enumerated cases,- -cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties, of the United States; cases affecting ambassadors, and other public ministers; and cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, reasons of a higher and more extensive nature, touching the safety, peace, and sovereignty, of the Nation, might well justify a grant of exclusive jurisdiction.

In

§ 371. This is not all. A motive of another kind, perfectly compatible with the most sincere respect for State tribunals, might induce the grant of appellate power over their decisions. That motive is the importance, and even necessity, of uniformity of decisions throughout the whole United States, upon all subjects within the purview of the Constitution. Judges of equal learning and integrity, in different States, might differently interpret a statute, or a treaty, of the United States, or even the Constitution itself. If there were no revising authority to control these jarring and discordant judgements, and harmonize them into uniformity, the laws, the treaties, and the Constitution, of the United States, would be different

shall make any thing but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts, or pass a law impairing the obligation of contracts. If Congress shall not have passed a law, providing for the removal of such a suit to the courts of the United States, must not the State court proceed to hear, and determine it? Can a mere plea in defence be, of itself, a bar to further proceedings, so as to prohibit an inquiry into its truth, or legal propriety, when no other tribunal exists, to which judicial cognizance of such cases is confided? Suppose an indictment for a crime in a State court, and the defendant should allege in his defence, that the crime was created by an ex post facto act of the State, must not the State court, in the exercise of a jurisdiction, which has already rightfully attached, have a right to pronounce on the validity, and sufficiency of the defence? It would be extremely difficult, upon any legal principles, to give a negative answer to these inquiries. Innumerable instances of the same sort might be stated, in illustration of the position; and unless the State courts could sustain jurisdiction in such cases, this clause of the sixth article would be without meaning or effect; and public mischiefs, of a most enormous magnitude, would inevitably ensue.

§ 369. It must, therefore, be conceded, that the Constitution not only contemplated, but meant to provide for, cases within the scope of the judicial power of the United States, which might yet be brought before State tribunals. It was foreseen, that, in the exercise of their ordinary jurisdiction, State courts would, incidentally, take cognizance of cases arising under the Constitution, the laws, and treaties, of the United States. Yet, to all these cases the judicial power, by the very terms of the Constitution, is to extend. It cannot extend, by original jurisdiction, if that has already rightfully and exclusively attached in the State courts, which (as has been already shown) may occur; it must, therefore, extend by appellate jurisdiction, or not at all. It would seem to follow, that the appellate power of the United States must, in such cases, extend to State tribunals; and, if in such cases, there is no reason, why it should not equally attach upon all others

§ 370. It is manifest, that the Constitution has proceeded upon a theory of its own, and given and withheld powers according to the judgement of the American people, by whom it was adopted. We can only construe its powers, and cannot here inquire into the policy, or principles, which induced the grant of them. The Constitution has presumed, (whether rightly or wrongly, we do not here inquire,) that State attachments, State prejudices, State jealousies, and State interests, might sometimes obstruct, or control, or be supposed to obstruct, or control, the regular administration of justice. Hence, in controversies between States; between citizens of different States; between citizens, claiming grants under different States; between a State and its citizens, or foreigners; and between citizens and foreigners; it enables the parties, under the authority of Congress, to have the controversies heard, tried, and determined, before the National tribunals. No other reason, than that, which has been stated, can be assigned, why some, at least, of these cases should not have been left to the cognizance of the State courts. In respect to the other enumerated cases,- -cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties, of the United States; cases affecting ambassadors, and other public ministers; and cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,-reasons of a higher and more extensive nature, touching the safety, peace, and sovereignty, of the Nation, might well justify a grant of exclusive jurisdiction.

§ 371. This is not all. A motive of another kind, perfectly compatible with the most sincere respect for State tribunals, might induce the grant of appellate power over their decisions. That motive is the importance, and even necessity, of uniformity of decisions throughout the whole United States, upon all subjects within the purview of the Constitution. Judges of equal learning and integrity, in different States, might differently interpret a statute, or a treaty, of the United States, or even the Constitution itself. If there were no revising authority to control these jarring and discordant judgements, and harmonize them into uniformity, the laws, the treaties, and the Constitution, of the United States, would be different

in different States; and might, perhaps, never have precisely the same construction, obligation, or efficacy, in any two States. The public mischiefs, which would attend such a state of things, would be truly deplorable; and it cannot be believed, that they could have escaped the enlightened Convention, which formed the Constitution. What, indeed, might then have been only prophecy, has now become fact; and the appellate jurisdiction must continue to be the only adequate remedy for such evils.

§ 372. There is an additional consideration, which is entitled to great weight. The Constitution of the United States was designed for the common and equal benefit of all the people of the United States. The judicial power was granted for the same benign and salutary purpose. It was not to be exercised exclusively for the benefit of parties, who might be plaintiffs, and would elect the National forum; but also for the protection of defendants, who might be entitled to try their rights, or assert their privileges, before the same forum. Yet, if the appellate jurisdiction does not extend to such cases, it will follow, that, as the plaintiff may always elect the State courts, the defendant may be deprived of all the security, which the Constitution intended in aid of his rights. Such a state of things can, in no respect, be considered as giving equal rights.

§ 373. Strong as this conclusion stands upon the general language of the Constitution, it may still derive support from other sources. It is an historical fact, that this exposition of the Constitution, extending its appellate power to State courts, was, previous to its adoption, uniformly and publicly avowed by its friends, and admitted by its enemies, as the basis of their respective reasonings, both in and out of the State conventions. It is an historical fact, that, at the time, when the Judiciary Act was submitted to the deliberations of the first Congress, composed, as it was, not only of men of great learning and ability, but of men, who had acted a principal part in framing, supporting, or opposing, that Constitution, the same exposition