Article 3, Section 2, Clause 3
Federal Farmer, no. 29 Oct. 1787Storing 2.8.16
Under one general government alone, there could be but one judiciary, one supreme and a proper number of inferior courts. I think it would be totally impracticable in this case to preserve a due administration of justice, and the real benefits of the jury trial of the vicinage,--there are now supreme courts in each state in the union; and a great number of county and other courts subordinate to each supreme court--most of these supreme and inferior courts are itinerant, and hold their sessions in different parts every year of their respective states, counties and districts--with all these moving courts, our citizens, from the vast extent of the country must travel very considerable distances from home to find the place where justice is administered. I am not for bringing justice so near to individuals as to afford them any temptation to engage in law suits; though I think it one of the greatest benefits in a good government, that each citizen should find a court of justice within a reasonable distance, perhaps, within a day's travel of his home; so that, without great inconveniences and enormous expences, he may have the advantages of his witnesses and jury--it would be impracticable to derive these advantages from one judiciary--the one supreme court at most could only set in the centre of the union, and move once a year into the centre of the eastern and southern extremes of it--and, in this case, each citizen, on an average, would travel 150 or 200 miles to find this court--that, however, inferior courts might be properly placed in the different counties, and districts of the union, the appellate jurisdiction would be intolerable and expensive.
Storing, Herbert J., ed. The Complete Anti-Federalist. 7 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.
© 1987 by The University of Chicago