in 1795, a statute of Pennsylvania was held invalid
by Judge Paterson in VanHorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 Dallas, 304;[1] in 1799, a statute of Vermont was held
invalid as violating the impairment of obligation of
contract clause of the Federal Constitution.[2] So far
as can be ascertained from the comments in the press
and from other contemporary documents, the action
of the Federal Courts in these cases met with no
opposition, and no claim was ever then advanced that
their action was without constitutional authority.[3]
Even more notable, however, in the history of American law was the very early exercise of another form of judicial power by the Federal Circuit Courts, when, three years from their establishment, they rendered a decision for the first time holding an Act of Congress to be in violation of the Constitution.
- ↑ This case has always been cited hitherto by legal historians (though erroneously) as the first instance of a decision by a Federal Court on the validity of a State statute. See Aurora, May 15, 1795, New York Daily Advertiser, May 16, 1795, Connecticut Journal, May 27, 1795, for interesting facts concerning the case; see also a pamphlet published in Lancaster, Pa., in 1801, by William Hamilton, entitled Connecticut Claim (Pickering Papers MSS, L, LVII). A writ of error was taken from this decision of the Circuit Court to the United States Supreme Court, but five years later, it was dismissed for failure to prosecute.
- ↑ This case, hitherto unnoted by legal historians, is described in Farmer's Weekly Museum, April 29, 1799, as one which "was lately brought to trial before the Circuit Court of the United States at Rutland, Vermont, the Church Land Cause, brought by the selectmen of Manchester, by virtue of a statute of that State authorizing the selectmen of each town to take possession of all church lands, and to appropriate the avails to other purposes than originally intended. The Court, after a fair, impartial examination of the merits of the cause, adjudged the statutes to be unconstitutional and that the Church should hold their lands."
- ↑ The only criticism of any of the decisions was that voiced by certain Federalists against Judge Paterson (himself a Federalist) owing to his decision in Van Horne v. Dorrance; it was based purely on political and personal grounds, and arose out of the fact that the decision had resulted in damage to large numbers of Connecticut Federalist settlers on lands in Pennsylvania; see Georgia Republican, Feb. 14, 1808. In Aurora, Sept. 20, 28, 1808, it is said that Judge Paterson's decision lost him the appointment as Chief Justice in 1801, owing to opposition by certain prominent Federalists.
to protect his person from an arrest by process or execution from the Courts of the United States, was fully debated upon demurrer, but is continued. . . . This cause involves consequences of immense magnitude, and we trust will not be decided without full deliberation." This case has not hitherto been noted.
