New Hampshire Statesman

For the Statesman.
UNITED STATES COURT.

MR. EDITOR,

Mr. Johnson, of Kentucky, has brought forward a motion in the Senate of the United States, requiring that the Judges of the Supreme Court of the U. S. shall be unanimous in every decision, touching the construction of a State law.

This motion reminds me of a motion made in our Legislature during its last session:-- The Superior Court had been petitioned to appoint a Committee to lay out a road through Hookset, Londonderry and other towns. One of the Representatives of Londonderry (who understands perfectly the interests of his own town, and who certainly does not know what it is to be wanting in duty to his constituents) moved that no road Committee thereafter to be appointed, should consist of less than five members; and that no report should be accepted by any Court, unless it was signed by every member. The motion seemed to be broad and general on its face, but those who knew the circumstances which suggested it, thought it would have been well enough to entitle it, "An Act, to prevent any new road being laid out through the town of Londonderry."

The Legislatures of the West. do not want any new decisions of the U. S. Court, and therefore, the motion of Mr. J. is introduced. A majority of the Supreme Court of Kentucky, can declare a law which violates the constitution of the State, unconstitutional: but the dignity of the State is so transcendent, that seven Judges of the United States Supreme Court must unite to pronounce any one of its acts, which violates the constitution of the United States, unconstitutional. It is not a little singular, that the Representatives of the West should be declaiming about state rights and state sovereignty, at the very moment when they are covering over the table of Congress with motions, which if adopted, will break down the state lines, and deprive the smaller states of all the attributes of sovereignty.