the　constitution；　a　State　_could_　be　brought　as　a　defendant；　to　the
  bar　of　his　court；　and　again；　that　Congress　might　authorize　a
  corporation　of　its　territory　to　exercise　legislation　within　a　State；
  and　paramount　to　the　laws　of　that　State。　　I　cite　the　sum　and　result
  only　of　his　doctrines；　according　to　the　impression　made　on　my　mind　at
  the　time；　and　still　remaining。　　If　not　strictly　accurate　in
  circumstance；　it　is　so　in　substance。　　This　doctrine　was　so　completely
  refuted　by　Roane；　that　if　he　can　be　answered；　I　surrender　human
  reason　as　a　vain　and　useless　faculty；　given　to　bewilder；　and　not　to
  guide　us。　　And　I　mention　this　particular　case　as　one　only　of　several；
  because　it　gave　occasion　to　that　thorough　examination　of　the
  constitutional　limits　between　the　General　and　State　jurisdictions；
  which　you　have　asked　for。　　There　were　two　other　writers　in　the　same
  paper；　under　the　signatures　of　Fletcher　of　Saltoun；　and　Somers；　who；
  in　a　few　essays；　presented　some　very　luminous　and　striking　views　of
  the　question。　　And　there　was　a　particular　paper　which　recapitulated
  all　the　cases　in　which　it　was　thought　the　federal　court　had　usurped
  on　the　State　jurisdictions。　　These　essays　will　be　found　in　the
  Enquirers　of　1821；　from　May　the　10th　to　July　the　13th。　　It　is　not　in
  my　present　power　to　send　them　to　you；　but　if　Ritchie　can　furnish
  them；　I　will　procure　and　forward　them。　　If　they　had　been　read　in　the
  other　States；　as　they　were　here；　I　think　they　would　have　left；　there
  as　here；　no　dissentients　from　their　doctrine。　　The　subject　was　taken
  up　by　our　legislature　of　1821　…　'22；　and　two　draughts　of
  remonstrances　were　prepared　and　discussed。　　As　well　as　I　remember；
  there　was　no　difference　of　opinion　as　to　the　matter　of　right；　but
  there　was　as　to　the　expediency　of　a　remonstrance　at　that　time；　the
  general　mind　of　the　States　being　then　under　extraordinary　excitement
  by　the　Missouri　question；　and　it　was　dropped　on　that　consideration。
  But　this　case　is　not　dead；　it　only　sleepeth。　　The　Indian　Chief　said
  he　did　not　go　to　war　for　every　petty　injury　by　itself；　but　put　it
  into　his　pouch；　and　when　that　was　full；　he　then　made　war。　　Thank
  Heaven；　we　have　provided　a　more　peaceable　and　rational　mode　of
  redress。
  This　practice　of　Judge　Marshall；　of　travelling　out　of　his　case
  to　prescribe　what　the　law　would　be　in　a　moot　case　not　before　the
  court；　is　very　irregular　and　very　censurable。　　I　recollect　another
  instance；　and　the　more　particularly；　perhaps；　because　it　in　some
  measure　bore　on　myself。　　Among　the　midnight　appointments　of　Mr。
  Adams；　were　commissions　to　some　federal　justices　of　the　peace　for
  Alexandria。　　These　were　signed　and　sealed　by　him；　but　not　delivered。
  I　found　them　on　the　table　of　the　department　of　State；　on　my　entrance
  into　office；　and　I　forbade　their　delivery。　　Marbury；　named　in　one　of
  them；　applied　to　the　Supreme　Court　for　a　mandamus　to　the　Secretary　of
  State；　（Mr。　Madison）　to　deliver　the　commission　intended　for　him。　　The
  court　determined　at　once；　that　being　an　original　process；　they　had　no
  cognizance　of　it；　and　therefore　the　question　before　them　was　ended。
  But　the　Chief　Justice　went　on　to　lay　down　what　the　law　would　be；　had
  they　jurisdiction　of　the　case；　to　wit：　that　they　should　command　the
  delivery。　　The　object　was　clearly　to　instruct　any　other　court　having
  the　jurisdiction；　what　they　should　do　if　Marbury　should　apply　to
  them。　　Besides　the　impropriety　of　this　gratuitous　interference；　could
  anything　exceed　the　perversion　of　law？　　For　if　there　is　any　principle
  of　law　never　yet　contradicted；　it　is　that　delivery　is　one　of　the
  essentials　to　the　validity　of　the　deed。　　Although　signed　and　sealed；
  yet　as　long　as　it　remains　in　the　hands　of　the　party　himself；　it　is　in
  _fieri_　only；　it　is　not　a　deed；　and　can　be　made　so　only　by　its
  delivery。　　In　the　hands　of　a　third　person　it　may　be　made　an　escrow。
  But　whatever　is　in　the　executive　offices　is　certainly　deemed　to　be　in
  the　hands　of　the　President；　and　in　this　case；　was　actually　in　my
  hands；　because；　when　I　countermanded　them；　there　was　as　yet　no
  Secretary　of　State。　　Yet　this　case　of　Marbury　and　Madison　is
  continually　cited　by　bench　and　bar；　as　if　it　were　settled　law；
  without　any　animadversion　on　its　being　merely　an　_obiter_
  dissertation　of　the　Chief　Justice。
  It　may　be　impracticable　to　lay　down　any　general　formula　of
  words　which　shall　decide　at　once；　and　with　precision；　in　every　case；
  this　limit　of　jurisdiction。　　But　there　are　two　canons　which　will
  guide　us　safely　in　most　of　the　cases。　　1st。　The　capital　and　leading
  object　of　the　constitution　was　to　leave　with　the　States　all
  authorities　which　respected　their　own　citizens　only；　and　to　transfer
  to　the　United　States　those　which　respected　citizens　of　foreign　or
  other　States：　to　make　us　several　as　to　ourselves；　but　one　as　to　all
  others。　　In　the　latter　case；　then；　constructions　should　lean　to　the
  general　jurisdiction；　if　the　words　will　bear　it；　and　in　favor　of　the
  States　in　the　former；　if　possible　to　be　so　construed。　　And　indeed；
  between　citizens　and　citizens　of　the　same　State；　and　under　their　own
  laws；　I　know　but　a　single　case　in　which　a　jurisdiction　is　given　to
  the　General　Government。　　That　is；　where　anything　but　gold　or　silver
  is　made　a　lawful　tender；　or　the　obligation　of　contracts　is　any
  otherwise　impaired。　　The　separate　legislatures　had　so　often　abused
  that　power；　that　the　citizens　themselves　chose　to　trust　it　to　the
  general；　rather　than　to　their　own　special　authorities。　　2d。　On　every
  question　of　construction；　carry　ourselves　back　to　the　time　when　the
  constitution　was　adopted；　recollect　the　spirit　manifested　in　the
  debates；　and　instead　of　trying　what　meaning　may　be　squeezed　out　of
  the　text；　or　invented　against　it；　conform　to　the　probable　one　in
  which　it　was　passed。　　Let　us　try　Cohen's　case　by　these　canons　only；
  referring　always；　however；　for　full　argument；　to　the　essays　before
  cited。
  1。　It　was　between　a　citizen　and　his　own　State；　and　under　a　law
  of　his　State。　　It　was　a　domestic　case；　therefore；　and　not　a　foreign
  one。
  2。　Can　it　be　believed；　that　under　the　jealousies　prevailing
  against　the　General　Government；　at　the　adoption　of　the　constitution；
  the　States　meant　to　surrender　the　authority　of　preserving　order；　of
  enforcing　moral　duties　and　restraining　vice；　within　their　own
  territory？　　And　this　is　the　present　case；　that　of　Cohen　being　under
  the　ancient　and　general　law　of　gaming。　　Can　any　good　be　effected　by
  taking　from　the　States　the　moral　rule　of　their　citizens；　and
  subordinating　it　to　the　general　authority；　or　to　one　of　their
  corporations；　which　may　justify　forcing　the　meaning　of　words；　hunting
  after　possible　constructions；　and　hanging　inference　on　inference；
  from　heaven　to　earth；　like　Jacob's　ladder？　　Such　an　intention　was
  impossible；　and　such　a　licentiousness　of　construction　and　inference；
  if　exercised　by　both　governments；　as　may　be　done　with　equal　right；
  would　equally　authorize　both　to　claim　all　power；　general　and
  particular；　and　break　up　the　foundations　of　the　Union。　　Laws　are　made
  for　men　of　ordinary　understanding；　and　should；　therefore；　be
  construed　by　the　ordinary　rules　of　common　sense。　　Their　meaning　is
  not　to　be　sought　for　in　metaphysical　subtleties；　which　may　make
  anything　mean　everything　or　nothing；　at　pleasure。　　It　should　be　left
  to　the　sophisms　of　advocates；　whose　trade　it　is；　to　prove　that　a
  defendant　is　a　plaintiff；　though　dragged　into　court；　_torto　collo_；
  like　Bonaparte's　volunteers；　into　the　field　in　chains；　or　that　a
  power　has　been　given；　because　it　ought　to　have　been　given；　_et　alia
  talia_。　　The　States　supposed　that　by　their　tenth　amendment；　they　had
  secured　themselves　against　constructive　powers。　　They　were　not
  lessoned　yet　by　Cohen's　case；　nor　aware　of　the　slipperiness　of　the
  eels　of　the　law。　　I　ask　for　no　straining　of　words　against　the　General
  Government；　nor　yet　against　the　States。　　I　believe　the　States　can
  best　govern　our　home　concerns；　and　the　General　Government　our　foreign
  ones。　　I　wish；　therefore；　to　see　maintained　that　wholesome
  distribution　of　powers　established　by　the　constitution　for　the
  limitation　of　both；　and　never　to　see　all　offices　transferred　to
  Washington；　where；　further　withdrawn　from　the　eyes　of　the　people；
  they　may　more　secretly　be　bought　and　sold　as　at　market。
  But　the　Chief　Justice　says；　〃there　must　be　an　ultimate　arbiter
  somewhere。〃　True；　there　must；　but　does　that　prove　it　is　either　party？
  The　ultimate　arbiter　is　the　people　of　the　Union；　assembled　by　their
  deputies　in　convention；　at　the　call　of　Congress；　or　of　two…thirds　of
  the　States。　　Let　them　decide　to　which　they　mean　to　give　an　authority
  claimed　by　two　of　their　organs。　　And　it　has　been　the　peculiar　wisdom
  and　felicity　of　our　constitution；　to　have　provided　this　peaceable
  appeal；　where　that　of　other　nations　is　at　once　to　force。
  I　rejoice　in　the　example　you　set　of　_seriatim_　opinions。　　I
  have　heard　it　often　no