in 1795, a statute of Pennsylvania was held invalid
by Judge Paterson in VanHome^s Lessee v. Dorrance^
2 Dallas, 304 ; ^ in 1799, a statute of Vermont was held
invalid as violating the impairment of obligation of
contract clause of the Federal Constitution.* 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,'
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.
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 de- cided without full deliberation." This case has not hitherto been noted. ^This case has always been dted hitherto by legal historians (though erro- neously) as the first instance of a dedsion by a Federal Court on the validity of a State statute. See Aurcrot May 15, 1795, New York Daily AdoerHser^ Slay 16, 1795, Connectictd Journal, May 27, 1795, for interesting facts concerning the case ; see also a pamphlet published in Lancaster, Pa., in 1801, by William Hamilton, entitled Conneetieut Claim {Pickering Papers MS 8, 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 Museumy April 29, 1799, as one which 'Vas lately brought to trial before the Cir- cuit 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 author- ising 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 unoomtiiulional and that the Church should hold their lands." ' The only criticism of any of the decisions was that voiced by certain Federal- ists agiunst Judge Paterson (himself a Federalist) owing to his decision in Van Home 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 Federalbt settlers on lands in Pennsylvania; see Georgia RepMi' can, Feb. 14, 1803. In Aurora, Sept. 20, 28, 1803, it is said that Judge Paterson's decision lost him the appointment as Chief Justice in 1801, owing to opposition hy certain prominent Federalists.
