The Bay State Monthly — Volume 2, No. 4, January, 1885Various
History
The Bay State Monthly — Volume 2, No. 4, January, 1885
Various
Massachusetts -- Periodicals; New England -- Periodicals
At the second session of the Forty-sixth Congress, Western and Southern
Democrats united their forces in support of an amendment to the
"Culbertson Court bill," which was designed to limit the jurisdiction of
the United States courts. Some of the strongest advocates of this
amendment were men who, although living in Northern States, were
unfriendly to the Union, and who, since the war, have been continuously
aggressive in their efforts to place limitations upon national power.
Mr. Robinson was a member of the Judiciary Committee and spoke upon the
bill. His speech upon this measure attracted more attention than any
speech he had delivered before that time. It commanded the undivided
attention of the House, which was so interested in it that, although the
debate was running in the valuable time of the morning hour, Mr.
Robinson, on motion of a Democrat, Mr. Randolph Tucker, after the
expiration of his time, was requested to continue. The speech was a
powerful, logical, patriotic defence of the federal courts. A few
extracts from the general parts of this speech furnish an excellent
illustration of the abilities of Mr. Robinson as a debater and orator,
as well as of his strong convictions. He spoke as the son of a Jackson
Democrat would be likely to speak. He vigorously opposed the increase in
the limit from $500 to $2,000 as proposed by the Southern and Western
Democrats.
After quoting the opinions of Chief Justices Story and Marshall to show
that the right of Congress to establish federal courts could not be
denied without defeating the Constitution itself, Mr. Robinson
continued: "I say, then, that those constitutional provisions give to
the citizens of the different States their rights in the federal courts.
I say again, it is not within the constitutional power of Congress to
make discriminations as to citizens in this matter. It has been taken as
settled that the corporations of the States for purposes of jurisdiction
are citizens of the States in which they are created. Can you
discriminate? Why, in the famous Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court
did discriminate, and said that a negro was not a citizen within the
meaning of the Constitution, nor entitled to sue in the Circuit Court of
the United States. The nation paused and held its breath, and never
recovered itself until after the bloody strife of the war, when was put
into the Constitution that guaranty that no such doctrine should ever be
repeated in this country. If Congress can exclude the citizens of a
locality, or the citizens of one color, or the citizens of one
occupation, or the citizens of certain classes of wealth or industry,
surely it can exclude any other citizens. If you can, in this bill and
under our Constitution, declare that the citizens, or any portion of
them, in this country, because they act in their corporate capacity,
shall lose their rights in the federal courts, it is but the next step
to legislate that the man who is engaged in rolling iron, or in the
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account