The Federalist Papers · Federalist No. 81 · paragraph 18

But it does not follow that the re-examination of a fact once ascertained by a jury, will be permitted in the Supreme Court. Why may not it be said, with the strictest propriety, when a writ of error is brought from an inferior to a superior court of law in this State, that the latter has jurisdiction of the fact as well as the law? It is true it cannot institute a new inquiry concerning the fact, but it takes cognizance of it as it appears upon the record, and pronounces the law arising upon it. This is jurisdiction of both fact and law; nor is it even possible to separate them. Though the common-law courts of this State ascertain disputed facts by a jury, yet they unquestionably have jurisdiction of both fact and law; and accordingly when the former is agreed in the pleadings, they have no recourse to a jury, but proceed at once to judgment. I contend, therefore, on this ground, that…

Publius · Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison · 1787–1788
Project Gutenberg #18, updated 11 October 2025; its author-attribution labels and source notes are retained. The supplied file does not identify one uniform underlying print edition.
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.