Judge Story says, “When our more immediate ancestors removed to America, they brought this great privilege with them, _as their birthright and inheritance_, as a part of that admirable common law which had fenced round, and interposed barriers on every side, against the approaches of arbitrary power. It is now incorporated into all our state constitutions, as a fundamental right; and the constitution of the United States would have been justly obnoxious to the most conclusive objection, if it had not recognized and confirmed it in the most solemn terms.”--3 _Com._ 652, 3. Is it conceivable, then, that the heroes and sages of the revolution, who rose in resistance to the most formidable power on earth; so many of whom rose against their own kindred in the mother country, because they loved liberty better than father or mother, or brother or sister, and who endured the privations and horrors of a seven years’ war;--is it conceivable, I say, that, when they had achieved their independence, and there was no longer any earthly power to control them, they should have framed a fundamental law, and should not have imbued that law with the “_spirit_” of the trial by jury, as its breath of life? As British subjects, they were entitled to this trial. As Americans, did they renounce it? Did they wage war for seven years in order to place themselves in a worse condition than they had been placed in by their “tyrant”? Mr. Webster says they did. He charges this infinite folly and blindness upon them, singly and collectively, one and all. I will now fortify this historical view, by a reference to some decisions of the supreme court which explain and define the meaning of the seventh amendment.[10] What is the true meaning of those descriptive words, “suits at common law”? Has not Mr. Webster, relying on his high reputation, disposed of this matter a little too summarily? He says, “The constitution declares that in suits at common law, the trial by jury shall be preserved;” but he adds, “The reclaiming of a fugitive slave is not a suit at common law.” But the supreme court of the United States has furnished us with an authoritative interpretation of the words of the constitution bearing on this subject. In the case of _Cohens_ VS. _Virginia_, 6 Wheaton, R. 407, they define what is meant by a “suit.” These are their words:--