The Federalist Papers
vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as Congress
shall ordain and establish"; and it then proceeds to enumerate the cases
to which this judicial power shall extend. It afterwards divides the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court into original and appellate, but
gives no definition of that of the subordinate courts. The only outlines
described for them, are that they shall be "inferior to the Supreme
Court," and that they shall not exceed the specified limits of the
federal judiciary. Whether their authority shall be original or
appellate, or both, is not declared. All this seems to be left to the
discretion of the legislature. And this being the case, I perceive at
present no impediment to the establishment of an appeal from the State
courts to the subordinate national tribunals; and many advantages
attending the power of doing it may be imagined. It would diminish the
motives to the multiplication of federal courts, and would admit of
arrangements calculated to contract the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court. The State tribunals may then be left with a more entire
charge of federal causes; and appeals, in most cases in which they may
be deemed proper, instead of being carried to the Supreme Court, may be
made to lie from the State courts to district courts of the Union.
PUBLIUS
1. No. 31.
2. Sec. 8, Art. 1.
FEDERALIST No. 83
The Judiciary Continued in Relation to Trial by Jury
From MCLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788
HAMILTON
To the People of the State of New York:
THE objection to the plan of the convention, which has met with most
success in this State, and perhaps in several of the other States, is
that relative to the want of a constitutional provision for the trial
by jury in civil cases. The disingenuous form in which this objection
is usually stated has been repeatedly adverted to and exposed, but
continues to be pursued in all the conversations and writings of the
opponents of the plan. The mere silence of the Constitution in regard to
civil causes, is represented as an abolition of the trial by jury,
and the declamations to which it has afforded a pretext are artfully
calculated to induce a persuasion that this pretended abolition is
complete and universal, extending not only to every species of civil,
but even to criminal causes. To argue with respect to the latter would,
however, be as vain and fruitless as to attempt the serious proof of the
existence of matter, or to demonstrate any of those propositions which,
by their own internal evidence, force conviction, when expressed in
language adapted to convey their meaning.
With regard to civil causes, subtleties almost too contemptible for
refutation have been employed to countenance the surmise that a thing
which is only not provided for, is entirely abolished. Every man of
discernment must at once perceive the wide difference between silence
and abolition. But as the inventors of this fallacy have attempted to
support it by certain legal maxims of interpretation, which they have
perverted from their true meaning, it may not be wholly useless to
explore the ground they have taken.
The maxims on which they rely are of this nature: "A specification of
particulars is an exclusion of generals"; or, "The expression of one
thing is the exclusion of another." Hence, say they, as the Constitution
has established the trial by jury in criminal cases, and is silent in
respect to civil, this silence is an implied prohibition of trial by
jury in regard to the latter.
The rules of legal interpretation are rules of common sense, adopted by
the courts in the construction of the laws. The true test, therefore,
of a just application of them is its conformity to the source from which
they are derived. This being the case, let me ask if it is consistent
with common-sense to suppose that a provision obliging the legislative
power to commit the trial of criminal causes to juries, is a privation
of its right to authorize or permit that mode of trial in other
cases? Is it natural to suppose, that a command to do one thing is a
prohibition to the doing of another, which there was a previous power to
do, and which is not incompatible with the thing commanded to be done?
If such a supposition would be unnatural and unreasonable, it cannot be
rational to maintain that an injunction of the trial by jury in certain
cases is an interdiction of it in others.
A power to constitute courts is a power to prescribe the mode of trial;
and consequently, if nothing was said in the Constitution on the subject
of juries, the legislature would be at liberty either to adopt that
institution or to let it alone. This discretion, in regard to criminal
causes, is abridged by the express injunction of trial by jury in all
such cases; but it is, of course, left at large in relation to civil
causes, there being a total silence on this head. The specification of
an obligation to try all criminal causes in a particular mode, excludes
indeed the obligation or necessity of employing the same mode in civil
causes, but does not abridge the power of the legislature to exercise
that mode if it should be thought proper. The pretense, therefore, that
the national legislature would not be at full liberty to submit all the
civil causes of federal cognizance to the determination of juries, is a
pretense destitute of all just foundation.
From these observations this conclusion results: that the trial by jury
in civil cases would not be abolished; and that the use attempted to
be made of the maxims which have been quoted, is contrary to reason and
common-sense, and therefore not admissible. Even if these maxims had a
precise technical sense, corresponding with the idea of those who employ
them upon the present occasion, which, however, is not the case, they
would still be inapplicable to a constitution of government. In relation
to such a subject, the natural and obvious sense of its provisions,
apart from any technical rules, is the true criterion of construction.
Having now seen that the maxims relied upon will not bear the use made
of them, let us endeavor to ascertain their proper use and true meaning.
This will be best done by examples. The plan of the convention declares
that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the national
legislature, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This
specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a
general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special
powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was
intended.
In like manner the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is
declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly
specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits,
beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction,
because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the
specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more
extensive authority.
These examples are sufficient to elucidate the maxims which have been
mentioned, and to designate the manner in which they should be used. But
that there may be no misapprehensions upon this subject, I shall add one
case more, to demonstrate the proper use of these maxims, and the abuse
which has been made of them.
Let us suppose that by the laws of this State a married woman was
incapable of conveying her estate, and that the legislature, considering
this as an evil, should enact that she might dispose of her property by
deed executed in the presence of a magistrate. In such a case there can
be no doubt but the specification would amount to an exclusion of any
other mode of conveyance, because the woman having no previous power to
alienate her property, the specification determines the particular mode
which she is, for that purpose, to avail herself of. But let us further
suppose that in a subsequent part of the same act it should be declared
that no woman should dispose of any estate of a determinate value
without the consent of three of her nearest relations, signified by
their signing the deed; could it be inferred from this regulation that
a married woman might not procure the approbation of her relations to
a deed for conveying property of inferior value? The position is too
absurd to merit a refutation, and yet this is precisely the position
which those must establish who contend that the trial by juries in civil
cases is abolished, because it is expressly provided for in cases of a
criminal nature.
From these observations it must appear unquestionably true, that trial
by jury is in no case abolished by the proposed Constitution, and it is
equally true, that in those controversies between individuals in
which the great body of the people are likely to be interested, that
institution will remain precisely in the same situation in which it is
placed by the State constitutions, and will be in no degree altered
or influenced by the adoption of the plan under consideration. The
foundation of this assertion is, that the national judiciary will have
no cognizance of them, and of course they will remain determinable as
heretofore by the State courts only, and in the manner which the State
constitutions and laws prescribe. All land causes, except where claims
under the grants of different States come into question, and all other
controversies between the citizens of the same State, unless where they
depend upon positive violations of the articles of union, by acts of the
State legislatures, will belong exclusively to the jurisdiction of the
State tribunals. Add to this, that admiralty causes, and almost all
those which are of equity jurisdiction, are determinable under our own
government without the intervention of a jury, and the inference from
the whole will be, that this institution, as it exists with us at
present, cannot possibly be affected to any great extent by the proposed
alteration in our system of government.
The friends and adversaries of the plan of the convention, if they agree
in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial
by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this:
the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter
represent it as the very palladium of free government. For my own
part, the more the operation of the institution has fallen under my
observation, the more reason I have discovered for holding it in high
estimation; and it would be altogether superfluous to examine to
what extent it deserves to be esteemed useful or essential in a
representative republic, or how much more merit it may be entitled to,
as a defense against the oppressions of an hereditary monarch, than as
a barrier to the tyranny of popular magistrates in a popular government.
Discussions of this kind would be more curious than beneficial, as all
are satisfied of the utility of the institution, and of its friendly
aspect to liberty. But I must acknowledge that I cannot readily discern
the inseparable connection between the existence of liberty, and the
trial by jury in civil cases. Arbitrary impeachments, arbitrary methods
of prosecuting pretended offenses, and arbitrary punishments upon
arbitrary convictions, have ever appeared to me to be the great
engines of judicial despotism; and these have all relation to criminal
proceedings. The trial by jury in criminal cases, aided by the habeas
corpus act, seems therefore to be alone concerned in the question. And
both of these are provided for, in the most ample manner, in the plan of
the convention.
It has been observed, that trial by jury is a safeguard against an
oppressive exercise of the power of taxation. This observation deserves
to be canvassed.