apolitans within 16 of that city, on the other side. ¡lions of ducats to be levied upon industry, trade, The latter have established municipalities in the and funded property." communes which they had occupied. That a levy The prince regent of Naples had abolished the en masse had been ordained in Calabria. Prepara-punishment of flogging for military offences, as an tions were making to receive the parliament at Co- outrage on the dignity of man. zenza. Several Spanish vessels laden with arms have arrived at Naples. The various generals, with the son of the prince regent, only 11 years of age, had proceeded to the different divisions of the army, and it seems to have been resolved that they shall act on the offensive. [See last page.]

From other sources we gather the following interesting notices of events:

A person named Gianpiertro, who appears to have been a man of some consequence, was lately murdered at Naples. After killing him, a paper marked "No. 1," was put into his mouth. He was said to be hostile to the new order of things.

ITALY GENERALLY.

Italy is at present divided into eight distinct and independent states, and the relative population, according to the most correct accounts, are given Lombardy and Venice belonging to Aus. tria, 6,070,927 The dominions of the king of Sardinia, S,497,775 Parma, Placentia and Gaustalla, belonging to the empress Maria Louisa, 300,000 Modena, under the arch duke Francis, 470,000 Tuscany, under the arch duke Ferdinand 1,100,000 Lucca, a small principality lying between Tuscany and Modena,

In the sitting of the parliament of the 14th, the deputy Morici, after expressing himself in indig-in the following table: nant terms against the outrage offered his country, concluded as follows: "I feel my frame animated by all the ardour of youth, and I beg you to grant me leave of absence that I may fly to the army. do not go there to assume any command, but mere. ly to serve in the ranks as a volunteer. I will entreat the general who may command, to let me fire the first shot against the enemy. I here swear never to return to my home, but to drag my grey hairs in the dust of the field of battle, if the country is not saved."

"The deputy Conciliis-And I--I also fly to the frontier to fight the foes of the constitution."

The states of the church, governed by the
pope,

The kingdom of Naples and Sicily,

170,000

2,000,000 6,619,502

Naples, Feb. 16. The following is a copy of the manifesto, which his holiness the pope has caused to be published in the town of Rieto:

Colonel Pepe--I also shall fly thither; an impetuous civisme impels me to seek the camps of my country. We shall again see each other in this "The Austrian troops advance; they come as place, my dear colleagues, if we are not killed." friends; and their march has no other end than to On the 15th of February the prince regent, at pass into the kingdom of Naples to re-establish the head of the members of parliament, pronounc-there that peace which, reconquered after the efed before an assembled multitude, a declaration of fusion of so much blood, has again been disturbed war against Austria and the coalesced powers. in that kingdom by recent events. We exhort all General Corroscosa commands the Neapolitan the people of Italy, and the Neapolitans themselves, army, under the prince regent-the chief generals to receive and to treat them with perfect hospi under him are Florestan Pepe, William Pepe, Be-tality." gani, Arcovito, and Filangieri, who were all at their several posts.

SWEDEN.

A letter from Stockholm says "The English tra In consequence of certain slanders cast upon veller, M. de Brooke, who last summer arrived at him, general Filangieri resigned his command in Stockholm with the intention of prosecuting his the army in January last--many of his friends, travels beyond the polar circle, has returned here among whom were several of the ablest officers, safe, after his arduous undertaking. Proceeding followed his lead, and it seemed as if the service first to Daontheim, he pursued his way along the would be deprived of the best men at the moment coasts of Norlander and Finmarker, until he reachwhen they were most needed;--on this the regented the northern cape, and waiting there until the issued an order, that, as the country was about to fall of the snow, he, in the middle of winter, tra be assailed by a foreign enemy, such resignations versed the deserts of Lapland with rein-deer, until would not be accepted. Then Filangieri and his he again reached Sweden. During part of this brave friends instantly withdrew their applications singular journey the cold is described to have been and resumed their commands. intense."

WEST INDIES.

We have a proclamation of general W. Pepe to the Neapolitan army. It is a very spirited pro- A pirate or privateer, under the flag of Artigas, duction; puts forth the wrongs designed by the has recently been captured by a French frigate and enemies of Naples in the strongest colors, and ex-sent into Martinico. Her crew, 100 in number, horts the soldiers to behave valiantly. He says, were in close confinement, and, it was thought, "nations are not destroyed--we are strong enough would be hung, the commission being considered to resist all Europe--the position of our kingdom as a forgery. is such as to admit no kind of doubt of the result of our defence-we are put to the alternative of conquering, or of making slaves of our sons-every one of you is worth fifty foreigners led by force to fight in the land of Marius and of Pontus, for the vile and selfish pretensions of a few," &c

CHRONICLE.

General Jackson left Nashville on the 14th ult for Pensacola, to assume the government of the Floridas.

Insolvents. There are nearly 350 persons who are, at present, applicants to the commissioners of the city of Baltimore, for the benefit of the insolvent laws of Maryland!

It appears that Sicily is to have some kind of a separate government, though to be under the same monarch. Hence the Neapolitan troops, 11,000 in number, were to be immediately withdrawn from the island. The deputies that were at Naples were New York. A general election was held in this returning to Palermo, to form a parliament there. state last week for the choice of members of conAn article from Rome says-"The parliament of gress and of the state legislature; but it was the Naples has authorized a forced loan of three mil-latter that chiefly excited the public feeling, and

caused as much anxiety, perhaps, as ever existed on a similar occasion, for on its result depended a possession of the power of the state by the friends or opponents of gov. Clinton. Last year that power was in the latter, and probably continues so to be, though a contrary opinion prevailed for two days in the city of New York. Particulars for reference shall be given hereafter. John W. Taylor, [late speaker] is re-elected to congress.

At this election a vote was also taken whether the people would have a convention to revise and amend the constitution? "The ayes appear to have it," by a very large majority.

act of the general assembly of the state of Virginia, prohibiting such sale, is valid, notwithstanding the said acts of congress, then judgment to be entered that the defendants are guilty, and that the commonwealth recover against them one hundred dollars and costs."

Judgment was rendered against the defendants; and the court in which it was rendered, being the highest court of the state, in which the cause was cognizable, the record has been brought into this court by writ of error.

The defendant in error moves to dismiss this writ, for want of jurisdiction.

In support of this motion, three points have been made, and argued with the ability which the importance of the question merits. These points

1st. That a state is a defendant.

2d. That no writ of error lies from this court to a state court.

American captives at liberty. William Meeks, (a sergeant who accompanied general, then lieutenant, Pike in his expedition in 1807), Peter Baum, Samuel Chambers, Benjamin Cheve, John Stephen-areson, William Gray, Charles Mint, Robert M'Knight, James Baird, Simon M'Coy, and Charles King, who have been captured on various pretences by the Spaniards in Mexico, and detained from 14 to 20 years, have been released and permitted to leave the country, in consequence of a general order of the king of Spain, directing the discharge of all the Americans. Meeks has arrived at Fort Smith. A William Mines remains as a clerk at Mexico, and a Michael M'Donough had become a monk.

NOTICE TO NAVAL PENSIONERS.

Navy department, Washington, May 1st, 1821. An act of congress, approved the 3d of March, 1819, requires that an examination shall be had, biennially, of all invalid pensioners of the United States, except in cases in which the pension had been originally granted for a total disability in con. sequence of the loss of a limb, or other cause, which cannot, either in whole or in part be removed.

Notice is therefore, hereby given, that each person disabled in the public or private armed vessels of the United States, to whom a pension has been granted, must, before the first day of January, 1822, and biennially afterwards, submit himself to the examination of two surgeons or physicians; those of the navy to be preferred.

Forms of the certificates to be given by the surgeons or physicians, with ample instructions as to the mode of proceeding, will be delivered to the pensioners, respectively, at the bank of the United States and its branches, when they shall apply for the payment of their pensions.

Question of Jurisdiction.

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT.

3d. The third point has been presented in different forms by the gentlemen who have argued it. The counsel who opened the cause, said that the want of jurisdiction was shown by the subject matter of the case. The counsel who followed him, said that jurisdiction was not given by the judicial act. The court has bestowed all its attention on the arguments of both gentlemen, and supposes that their tendency is to show that this court has no jurisdiction of the case, or, in other words, has no right to review the judgment of the state court, because neither the constitution, nor any law of the United States, has been violated by that judgment.

The questions presented to the court by the two first points, made at the bar, are of great magnitude, and may be truly said vitally to affect the union. They exclude the enquiry whether the constitution and laws of the United States have been violated by the judgment, which the plaintiffs in error seek to review; and maintain that, admitting such violation, it is not in the power of the government to apply a corrective. They maintain that the nation does not possess a department capable of restraining peaceably, and by authority of law, any attempts which may be made, either intentionally or inad vertently, by a part, against the legitimate powers of the whole; and that the government is reduced to the alternative of submitting to such attempts, or of resisting them by force. They maintain that the constitution of the United States has provided no tribunal for the final construction of itself, or of the laws or treaties of the nation; but that this power may be exercised in the last resort, by the courts of every state in the union. That the constitution, Cohens vs. the state of Virginia. laws, and treaties, may receive as many construcThis is a writ of error to a judgment rendered tions as there are states; and that this is not a misin the court of hustings, for the borough of Nor- chief, or, if a mischief, is irremediable. The. folk, on an information for selling lottery tickets abstract propositions are to be determined; for he contrary to an act of the legislature of Virginia. In who demands decision, without permitting enquiry, the state court, the defendant claimed the protec-affirms, that the decision he asks does not depend tion of an act of congress. A case was agreed between the parties, which states the act of assembly, on which the prosecution was founded, and the act of congress, on which the defendant relied, and concludes in these words: "If upon this case the court shall be of opinion that the acts of congress, before mentioned, were valid, and, on the true construction of those acts, the lottery tickets, sold by the defendants as aforesaid, might law. fully be sold within the state of Virginia, notwithstanding the act or statute of the general assembly of Virginia prohibiting such sale, then judgment to be entered for the defendants: And if the court should be of opinion that the statute or

on enquiry.

If such be the constitution, it is the duty of the court to bow with respectful submission to its provisions. If such be not the constitution, it is equally the duty of this court to say so; and to perform that task which the American people have assigned to the judicial department.

1st. The first question to be considered is, whether the jurisdiction of this court is excluded by the character of the parties, one of them being a state, and the other a citizen of that state?

The second section of the third article of the constitution defines the extent of the judicial power of the United States. Jurisdiction is given to the

courts of the union in two classes of cases. In the first, their jurisdiction depends on the character of the cause, whoever may be the parties. This class comprehends "all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority." This clause extends the jurisdiction of the court to all the cases described, without making in its terms any exception whatever, and without any regard to the condition of the party. If there be any exception, it is to be implied against the express words of the article.

In the second class, the jurisdiction depends entirely on the character of the parties. In this are comprehended "controversies between two or more states, between a state and citizens of another state," "and between a state and foreign states, citizens, or subjects." If these be the parties, it is entirely unimportant what may be the subject of controversy. Be it what it may, these parties have a constitutional right to come into the courts of the

union.

The counsel, for the defendant in error, have stated that the cases which arise under the constitution, must grow out of those provisions which are capable of self-execution; examples of which are to be found in the second section of the fourth article, and in the tenth section of the first article.

part of this portion, depends on the instrument by which the surrender is made. If, upon a just construction of that instrument, it shall appear that the state has submitted to be sued, then it has parted with this this sovereign right of judging in every case on the justice of its own pretensions, and has entrusted that power to a tribunal in whose impartiality it confides.

The American states, as well as the American people, have believed a close and firm union to be essential to their liberty and to their happiness. They have been taught by experience, that this union cannot exist without a government for the whole; and they have been taught by the same experience that this government would be a mere shadow, that must disappoint all their hopes, unless invested with large portions of that sovereignty which belongs to independent states. Under the influence of this opinion, and thus instructed by experience, the American people, in the con ventions of their respective states, adopted the present constitution.

If it could be doubted whether from its nature, it were not supreme in all cases where it is empow ered to act, that doubt would be removed by the declaration that "this constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby; any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

A case which arises under a law of the United States must, we are likewise told, be a right given by some act which becomes necessary to execute the powers given in the constitution, of which the law of naturalization is mentioned as an example. The use intended to be made of this exposition, of the first part of the section defining the extent of the judicial power, is not clearly understood. If the intention be merely to distinguish cases arising under the constitution, from those arising under a law, for the sake of precision in the application of this argument, these propositions will not be controverted. If it be to maintain that a case arising under the constitution, or a law, must be one in which a party comes into court to demand something conferred on him by the constitution or a law, we think the construction too narrow. A case in law or equity, consists of the right of the one party, as well as of the other, and may truly be said to arise under the constitution or a law of the United States, whenever its correct decision depends on the construction of either. Congress seems to have intended to give its own construction, of this part of the constitution, in the 25th section of the judicial act; and we perceive no reason to depart from that construc-government, for these interesting purposes, are tion.

This is the authoritative language of the American people; and, if gentlemen please, of the American states. It marks, with lines too strong to be mistaken, the characteristic distinction between the government of the union, and those of the states. The general government, though limited as to its objects, is supreme with respect to those objects. This principle is a part of the constitution; and if there be any who deny its necessity, none can deny its authority.

The jurisdiction of the court, then, being exnded by the letter of the constitution to all cases arising under it, or under the laws of the United States, it follows that those who would withdraw any case of this description from that jurisdiction, must sustain the exemption they claim on the spirit and true meaning of the constitution, which spirit and true meaning must be so apparent, as to overrule the words which its framers have employed.

The counsel, for the defendant in error, have undertaken to do this; and have laid down the general proposition, that a sovereign independent state is not suable except by its own consent.

This general proposition will not be controverted. But its consent is not requisite in each particu. far case. It may be given in a general law. And if a state has surrendered any portion of its sovereignty, the question whether a liability to suit be a

To this supreme government ample powers are confided; and, if it were possible to doubt the great purposes for which many were so confided, the people of the United States have declared that they are given "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity."

With the ample powers confided to this supreme connected many express and important limitations on the sovereignty of the states, which are made for the same purposes. The powers of the union on the great subjects of war, peace, and commerce, and on many others, are in themselves limitations of the sovereignty of the states; but in addition to these, the sovereignty of the states is surrendered in many instances where the surrender can only operate to the benefit of the people, and where, perhaps, no other power is conferred on congress than a conservative power to maintain the principles established in the constitution. The maintenance of these principles in their purity, is cer tainly among the great duties of the government. One of the instruments by which this duty may be be peaceably performed, is the judicial department. It is authorized to decide all cases of every description, arising under the constitution or laws of the United States. From this general grant of juris. diction, no exception is made of those cases in

which a state may be a party. When we consider | legislative, merely because it is fit that it should be the situation of the government of the union, and so; but we mean to say that this fitness furnishes of a state, in relation to each other, the nature of an argument in construing the constitution which our constitution, the subordination of the state ought never to be overlooked, and which is most governments to that constitution, the great pur- especially entitled to consideration when we are pose for which jurisdiction over all cases arising enquiring whether the words of the instrument under the constitution and laws of the United which purport to establish this principle, shall be States, is confided to the judicial department, contracted for the purpose of destroying it. are we at liberty to insert in this general grant, an exception of those cases in which a state may be a party? Will the spirit of the constitution justify this attempt to control its words? We think it will not. We think a case arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, is cognizable in the courts of the union, whoever may be the parties to that case.

Had any doubt existed with respect to the just construction of this part of the section, that doubt would have been removed by the enumeration of those cases to which the jurisdiction of the federal courts is extended, in consequence of the character of the parties. In that enumeration, we find "controversies between two or more states, between a state and citizens of another state," "and between a state and foreign states, citizens, or subjects."

The mischievous consequences of the construction, contended for on the part of Virginia, are also entitled to great consideration. It would prostrate, it has been said, the government and its laws at the feet of every state in the union. And would not this be its effect? What power of the government could be so executed by its own means, in any state disposed to resist its execution by a course of legislation? The laws must be executed by individuals acting within the several states. If these individuals may be exposed to penalties, and if the courts of the union cannot correct the judgments by which these penalties may be enforced, the course of the government may be, at any time, arrested by the will of one of its members. Each member will possess a veto on the will of the whole.

The answer which has been given to this argument does not deny its truth, but insists that confidence is reposed, and may be safely reposed, in the state institutions; and that, if they shall ever become so insane, or so wicked as to seek the destruction of the government, they may accomplish their object by refusing to perform the functions assigned to them.

One of the express objects, then, for which the judicial department was established, is the decision of controversies between states, and between a state and individuals. The mere circumstance that a state is a party, gives jurisdiction to the court. How, then, can it be contended that the very same instrument, in the very same section, should be so construed as that this same circum- We readily concur with the counsel for the destance should withdraw a case from the jurisdic-fendant, in the declaration that the cases which have tion of the court, where the constitution or laws been put of direct legislative resistance for the of the United States, are supposed to have been purpose of opposing the acknowledged powers of violated. The constitution gave to every person the government, are extreme cases, and in the hope having a claim upon a state, a right to submit his that they will never occur; but we cannot help becase to the court of the nation. However unim-lieving, that a general conviction of the total incaportant his claim might be, however little the compacity of the government to protect itself and its munity might be interested in its decision, the laws in such cases, would contribute in no inconframers of our constitution thought it necessary for siderable degree to their occurrence. the purposes of justice, to provide a tribunal as superior to influence as possible, in which that claim might be decided. Can it be imagined that the same persons, considered a case involving the constitution of our country and the majesty of the laws, questions in which every American citizen must be deeply interested, as withdrawn from this tribunal, because a state is a party?

While weighing arguments drawn from the nature of government, and from the general spirit of an instrument, and urged for the purpose of narrowing the construction, which the words of that instrument seem to require, it is proper to place in the opposite scale those principles, drawn from the same sources, which go to sustain the words in their full operation and natural import. One of these, which has been pressed with great force by the counsel for the plaintiff in error, is, that the judicial power of every well constituted government must be co-extensive with the legislative, and must be capable of deciding every judicial question which grows out of the constitution and laws.

Let it be admitted, that the cases which have been put are extreme and improbable, yet there are gradations of opposition to the laws, far short of those cases, which might have a baneful influence on the affairs of the nation. Different states may entertain different opinions on the true construction of the constitutional powers of congress. We know that, at one time, the assumption of the debts contracted by the several states, during the war of our revolution, was deemed unconstitutional by some of them. We know that, at other times, certain taxes, imposed by congress, have been pronounced unconstitutional. Other laws have been questioned partially, while they were supported by the great majority of the American people. We have no assurance that we shall be less divided than we have been. States may legislate in conformity to their opinions, and may enforce those opinions by penalties. It would be hazarding too much to assert that the judicatures of the states will be exempt from the prejudices by which the legislatures and people are influenced, and will constitute perfectly impartial tribunals. In many states, the judges are If any proposition may be considered as a politi-dependent for office and for salary on the will of cal axiom, this, we think, may be so considered. the legislature. The constitution of the United In reasoning upon it, as an abstract question, there States furnishes no security against the universal would probably exist no contrariety of opinion re-adoption of this principle. When we observe the specting it. Every argument, proving the neces-importance which that constitution attaches to the sity of the department, proves also the propriety independence of judges, we are the less inclined of giving this extent to it. We do not mean to to suppose that it can have intended to leave these say that the jurisdiction of the courts of the union constitutional questions to tribunals where this inshould be construed to be co-extensive with the dependence may not exist, in all cases where a

+

state shall prosecute an individual who claims the fusing to act. They have only not to elect senaprotection of an act of congress. These prosecutors, and it expires without a struggle. tions may take place even without a legislative act. It is very true that, whenever hostility to the exA person making a seizure under an act of con-isting system shall become universal, it will be also gress, may be indicted as a trespasser, if force has irresistible. The people made the constitution, been employed, and of this a jury may judge. How extensive may be the mischief if the first decisions in such cases should be final.

These collisions may take place in times of no extraordinary commotion. But a constitution is framed for ages to come, and is designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it. Its course cannot always be tranquil. It is exposed to storms and tempests, and its framers must be unwise statesmen, indeed, if they have not provided it, as far as its nature will permit, with the means of self-preservation from the perils it may be destined to encounter. government ought to be so defective in its orga

No

and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it, is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it.

The acknowledged inability of the government, then, to sustain itself against the public will, and, by force or otherwise, to control the whole nation, is no sound argument in support of its constitu tional inability to preserve itself against a section of the nation acting in opposition to the general

will.

sures, adopted in any one state, whose tendency might be to arrest the execution of the laws; and this it was the part of true wisdom to attempt. We think they have attempted it.

nization, as not to contain within itself the means It is true, that, if all the states, or a majority of of securing the execution of its own laws against other dangers than those which occur every day. them, refuse to elect senators, the legislative powers of the union will be suspended. But if any one Courts of justice are the means most usually employed; and it is reasonable to expect that a go- state shall refuse to elect them, the senate will not, vernment should repose on its own courts rather on that account, be the less capable of performing than on others. There is certainly nothing in the all its functions. The argument founded on this circumstances under which our constitution was fact, would seem rather to prove the subordination formed; nothing in the history of the times, which of the parts to the whole, than the complete indewould justify the opinion, that the confidence re-pendence of any one of them. The framers of the posed in the states was so implicit, as to leave constitution were, indeed, unable to make any proin them and their tribunals the power of resisting visions which should protect that instrument against or defeating, in the form of law, the legitimate a general combination of the states, or of the peomeasures of the union. The requisitions of con- ple, for its destruction; and, conscious of this inagress, under the confederation, were as constitu- bility, they have not made the attempt. But they tionally obligatory as the laws enacted by the pre-were able to provide against the operation of measent congress. That they were habitually disre. garded, is a fact of universal notoriety. With the knowledge of this fact, and under its full pressure, a convention was assembled to change the system. It has also been urged, as an additional objection It's so improbable that they should confer on the judicial department the power of construing the to the jurisdiction of the court, that cases between constitution, and the laws of the union, in every a state and one of its own citizens, do not come case, in the last resort, and of preserving them within the general scope of the constitution, and from all violation from every quarter, so far as ju- were obviously never intended to be made organizdicial decisions can preserve them, that this impro-able in the federal courts. The state tribunals bability should essentially affect the construction might be suspected of partiality in cases between of the new system? We are told, and we are truly itself or its citizens and aliens, or the citizens of told, that the great change which is to give efficacy another state, but not in proceedings by a state That jealousy which to the present system, is its ability to act on indivi. against its own citizens. duals directly, instead of acting through the instru- might exist in the first case, could not exist in the mentality of state governments. But ought not last, and therefore the judicial power is not exthis ability, in reason and sound policy, to be applied directly to the protection of individuals employed in the execution of the laws, as well as to their coercion. Your laws reach the individual without the aid of any other power; why may they not protect him from punishment for performing his duty in executing them?

tended to the last.

This is very true, so far as jurisdiction depends on the character of the parties; and the argument would have great force if urged to prove that this court could not establish the demand of a citizen upon his state, but is not entitled to the same force when urged to prove that this court cannot enquire whether the constitution or laws of the UnitThe counsel for Virginia endeavor to obviate the ed States protect a citizen from a prosecution in force of these arguments, by saying that the dangers stituted against him by a state. If jurisdiction de they suggest, if not imaginary, are inevitable; that pended entirely upon the character of the parties, the constitution can make no provision against and was not given where the parties have not an them; and that, therefore, in construing that instru- original right to come into court, that part of the ment, they ought to be excluded from our consi-second section of the third article which extends deration. This state of things, they say, cannot the judicial power to all cases arising under the arise until there shall be a disposition so hostile to constitution and laws of the United States, would the present political system as to produce a deter-be mere surplusage. It is to give jurisdiction where mination to destroy it; and, when that determina the character of the parties would not give it, that tion shall he produced, its effects will not be re- this very important part of the clause was inserted. strained by parchment stipulations. The fate of It may be true, that the partiality of the state tributhe constitution will not then depend upon judicial nals, in ordinary controversies between a state and decisions. But, should no appeal be made to force,its citizens, was not apprehended, and therefore the states can put an end to the government by re-the judicial power of the union was not extended