Log In Register

Source & Citation Info

title:“Richard Harison's Notes of the New York Ratification Convention Debates”
authors:Melancton Smith, Richard Harison, Samual Jones
date written:1788-7-5

permanent link
to this version:
last updated:Jan. 22, 2013, 8:19 a.m. UTC
retrieved:Jan. 17, 2018, 11:00 a.m. UTC

Smith, Melancton, Samual Jones, and Richard Harison. "Richard Harison's Notes of the New York Ratification Convention Debates." The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. Vol. 22. Ed. John P. Kaminski. Madison: Wisconsin Historical Society Press, 2008. 2099-2105. Print.
Richard Harison, Notes, Library of Congress

Richard Harison's Notes of the New York Ratification Convention Debates (July 5, 1788)

CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS. Mr. Smith. All Writs &ca. to run in the Name of the People of the United States-3d. Article— Section 1st.— JONES says this Article exceptionable in various Instances—does not sufficiently define the Cases to wh. it applies— makes it necessary to institute a Number of Courts— will be dangerous or expensive— may be necessary to have Courts in every County with all their Officers— tho' they may commission the State Courts but this very inconvenient—Jurisdictions may clash— hard to say to what Courts Cases belong—Bankruptcies & Naturalization may come in Question & this not known till the Cause comes to Trial— does not say this may not be collaterally tried in the State Courts. but this is only to be derived from Induction— Want of a Court of Errors for the Supreme Court—New Courts generally tend to the Oppression of the People—Ld. Coke's Opinion— necessary to have a Court of Appeal— No Court so like the present Supreme Court as the Star Chamber, composed of privy Counsellors & other great Men—& if an Appeal had lain might have been beneficial— Two Govts. should be made to harmonize with & support each other—therefore Jurisdiction in the first Instance should be committed to the State Courts— Continual Squabbles otherwise until one Court swallows the other—the genl. Courts will probably swallow the State Courts—does not suppose the Supreme Court will be corrupt— wishes to see it independent, but not of the Legislature— Commission of Review—Case of Wales— proposes Amendment. Intermediate Courts of Appeal necessary. Jones—Doubts may arise as to the Expression appellate Jurisdiction both as to Law & Fact—Appeals in this State from Courts of Common Law to be by Writ of Error— Mr. Jones Judges of the Supreme Court not to hold any Office under the United States or any of them— Sect. 2d.— Cases where a State is a Party not to extend to criminal Causes No Suit to be brought against any State Controversies about Lands between Citizens of the same State— between Citizens of different States & Foreigners &ca. as to Lands— It was attempted to make this Constitution too perfect—from a View of particular Inconveniencies—
SMITH. Questions arising upon the Constitution go to the Genl. Judiciary—the Laws of the Union are generally to controul.—does not understand how Cases in Equity can arise [under?] the Constitution Cases must be decided [by the?] Supreme Court as to Taxes, & they will be biassed as to in Favor of the Power from wh. they themselves are derived—. So as to Cases between Citizens of different States— it must be determined in the Sup Court whether there is a concurrent Jurisdiction— Noexpress Provision as to Trial by Jury, but it is left to the Discretion of Congress— Why Disputes between Citz. of different States and Foreigners shd. go to the fed. Courts he is at a Loss to know—No Objectn. to the due Admn. of Just. hitherto— Appeals may lie in criminal Cases from the Trial of a Jury both as to Law and Fact— only Security is Trial by Jury & in the State, not secured that he shall be tried in the Vicinage— nor that he shall be indicted—States may be sued also as private Persons.— Is not certain he is right, but until convinced can never agree to the Clause—

Resource Metadata