SEVENTH CONGRESS.—FIRST SESSION. (continued 3)

"The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of Government. In a monarchy, it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince. In a republic, it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body."

This, sir, to my mind, is conclusive, that the convention intended this tenure as a restriction no less on Legislative than on Executive power, and that, in this sense of the phrase, the people of America received this part of the constitution. In ascertaining the import of the words "during good behavior," it is certainly important to inquire the end to which they have been used in other similar cases. My colleague (Mr. Henderson) has, with much abler talents, shown that, in most of the State constitutions, which existed before our Federal constitution, these words are used to fix the tenure of offices where the Executive have neither express nor constructive power of removal; consequently, they are in those constitutions restrictive of the Legislative power. If, then, the framers of our constitution borrowed this tenure from these State constitutions, it is fair and reasonable to conclude they used them in the sense in which they were previously received. But, says my colleague on the other side of the House, (Mr. Robert Williams,) the judges in England hold their offices by the tenure of "good behavior," and yet are removable on an address from both Houses of Parliament, and he infers that the terms may have been taken from England. To this I will first observe, that no fair argument can be drawn from the existence of this Legislative power there, for the exercise here. The mode of appointment there may render such control over the Executive necessary, which, from the provisions of our constitution, are not wanted here. In England, the King has the sole power of appointment—the people have no previous check. In this country, the Executive appointment is checked by the requisite sanction of the Senate. But is this Legislative power in Great Britain usurped by construction? No, if the gentleman will read again the statute of 13 William III., he will find that this power of removal is expressly granted by the Crown to Parliament. If, then, one convention had this statute before them, in adopting that part which relates to the tenure of office, and omitting that part which gives the power of removal, it is not to be presumed they intended so important a power should depend on construction. The same gentleman (Mr. Robert Williams) also contended that it could not be presumed the convention intended to restrict the power of the Representatives of the people, the friends of the people. What will the gentleman say of the correctness of his opinion, when I remind him that our powers are all expressly restricted; that the same article which fixes the tenure of "good behavior," expressly and undoubtedly guards against the power of the Representatives of the people, the friends of the people, by securing the salaries of the judges undiminished during their continuance in office.

Mr. Giles said that he felt some degree of apprehension, that, in the course he deemed it necessary to take in the discussion of this question, some observations might fall from him which might not be in strict harmony with the feelings of some gentlemen of the committee. He should regret, however, if a compliance with a sense of duty should produce that effect. He said, therefore, that he wished to apprise gentlemen that he intended to direct his observations as much as possible to the effects and tendencies of measures; and that when he was constrained to speak of the views of gentlemen, it would be with respect to what he conceived to be their opinions in relation to the general interests, and not to private gratifications. He said it was natural that men should differ in the choice of means to produce a given end, and more natural that they should differ in the choice of political means than any other; because the subject presented more complicated and variable objects, out of which to make a choice. Accordingly, a great portion of the human mind has been at all times directed towards monarchy, as the best form of government to enforce obedience and ensure the general happiness; whereas another portion of the human mind has given a preference to the republican form, as best calculated to produce the same end; and there is no reason for applying improper motives to individuals who should give a preference to either of the principles, provided in doing so they follow the honest dictates of their own judgments. It must be obvious to the most common observer, that, from the commencement of the Government of the United States, and perhaps before it, a difference of opinion existed among the citizens, having more or less reference to these two extreme fundamental points, and that it manifested itself in the modification or administration of the Government as soon as it was put in operation. On one side, it was contended, that in the organization of the constitution a due apportionment of authority had not been made among the several departments; that the Legislature was too powerful for the Executive Department; and to create and preserve a proper equipoise, it was necessary to infuse into the Executive Department, by legislation, all artificial powers compatible with the constitution, upon which the most diffusive construction was given; or, in other words, to place in Executive hands all the patronage it was possible to create, for the purpose of protecting the President against the full force of his constitutional responsibility to the people. On the other side, it was contended, that the doctrine of patronage was repugnant to the opinions and feelings of the people; that it was unnecessary, expensive, and oppressive, and that the highest energy the Government could possess, would flow from the confidence of the mass of the people, founded upon their own sense of their common interests. Hence, what is called party in the United States, grew up from a division of opinion respecting these two great characteristic principles. Patronage, or the creation of partial interest for the protection and support of Government, on the one side: on the other side, to effect the same end, a fair responsibility of all representatives to the people; an adherence to the general interests, and a reliance on the confidence of the people at large, resulting from a sense of their common interests. A variety of circumstances existed in the United States at the commencement of the Government, and a great number of favorable incidents continued afterwards to arise, which gave the patronage system the preponderancy, during the first three Presidential terms of election; notwithstanding it was evident, that the system was adopted and pursued in direct hostility to the feelings and opinions of a great portion of the American people. The Government was ushered into operation under a vast excitement of federal fervor, flowing from its recent triumph on the question of adopting the constitution. At that time a considerable debt was afloat in the United States, which had grown out of the Revolutionary war. This debt was of two kinds: the debt proper of the United States, or engagements made by the United States in their federal capacity; the other, the State debts or engagements entered into by the respective States for the support of the common cause.

The favorers of the patronage system readily availed themselves of these materials for erecting a moneyed interest; gave to it a stability, or qualified perpetuity, and calculated upon its certain support in all their measures of irresponsibility.

This was done not only by funding the debt proper of the United States, but by assuming the payment of the State debts, and funding them also; and it is believed, extending the assumption beyond the actual engagements of the States. Hence the Federal axiom, that a public debt is a public blessing. Shortly after this event, an Indian war sprang up—he would not say by what means—in consequence of which an army was added to the list of patronage. The Algerines commenced a predatory war upon the commerce of the United States, and thence a navy formed a new item of patronage. Taxes became necessary to meet the expenses of this system, and an arrangement of internal taxes, an excise, &c., still swelled the list of patronage. But the circumstance which most favored this system was, the breaking out of a tremendous and unprecedented war in those countries of Europe with which the United States had the most intimate relations. The feelings and sympathies of the people of the United States were so strongly attracted by the tremendous scenes existing there, that they considered their own internal concerns in a secondary point of view. After a variable conduct had been pursued by the United States in relation to these events, the depredations committed upon commerce, and the excitements produced thereby, enabled the Administration to indulge themselves in a more decisive course, and they at once pushed forward the people to the X, Y, Z, of their political alphabet, before they had well learned and understood the A, B, C, of the principles of the Administration.

Armies and navies were raised, and a variety of other schemes of expense were adopted, which placed the Administration in the embarrassing predicament, either to violate their faith with their public creditors, or to resort to new taxes. The latter alternative was preferred, accompanied with other strong coercive measures to enforce obedience. A land tax was laid for two millions of dollars. This measure awakened the people to a sense of their situation; and shook to the foundation all those federal ramparts which had been planned with so much ingenuity, and erected around the Executive with so much expense and labor. Another circumstance peculiarly favorable to the advocates of Executive patronage was, that during the two first Presidential terms, the Chief Executive Magistrate possessed a greater degree of popularity and the confidence of the people than ever was, or perhaps will ever be again attached to the person occupying that dignified station. The general disquietude which manifested itself in consequence of these enterprising measures, in the year 1800, induced the Federal party to apprehend that they had pushed their principles too far, and they began to entertain doubts of the result of the Presidential election, which was approaching. In this state of things, it was natural for them to look out for some department of the Government in which they could intrench themselves in the event of an unsuccessful issue in the election, and continue to support those favorite principles of irresponsibility which they could never consent to abandon.

The Judiciary Department, of course, presented itself as best fitted for their object, not only because it was already filled with men who had manifested the most indecorous zeal in favor of their principles, but because they held their offices by indefinite tenures, and of course were further removed from any responsibility to the people, than either of the other departments. Accordingly, on the 11th of March, 1800, a bill for the more convenient organization of the courts of the United States, was presented to the House of Representatives. This bill appears to have had for its objects, first, the gradual demolition of the State courts, by increasing the number and extending the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. Second, to afford additional protection to the principles of the then existing Administration by creating a new corps of judges of concurring political opinions. This bill, however, was not passed into a law during that session of Congress, perhaps from an apprehension that it would tend to increase the disquietudes which other measures had before excited, and therefore operate unfavorably to the approaching Presidential election. At the next session, after the result of the late election was ascertained, the bill, after having undergone some considerable alterations, was passed into the law now under discussion. This law, it is now said, is inviolable and irrepealable. It is said, the independence of the judge will be thereby immolated. Yes, sir, this law is now considered as the sanctuary of the principles of the last Administration, and the tenures of the judges as the horns of inviolability within that sanctuary. He said, we are now called upon to rally round the constitution as the ark of our political safety. Gentlemen, discarding all generalizing expressions, and the spirit of the instrument, tie down all construction to the strict letter of the constitution. He said, it gave him great pleasure to meet gentlemen on this ground, and the more so, because he had long been in the habit of hearing very different language from the same gentlemen. He had long been in the habit of hearing the same gentlemen speak of the expressions of "the common defence and the general welfare," as the only valuable part of the constitution; that they were sufficient to obliterate all specifications and limitations of power. That the constitution was a mere nose of wax, yielding to every impression it received. That every "opening wedge" which was driven into it, was highly beneficial in severing asunder the limitations and restrictions of power. That the republicanism it secured, meant any thing or nothing. It gave him, therefore, great pleasure at this time to obey the injunctions of gentlemen in rallying round the constitution as the ark of our political safety, and of interpreting it in by the plain and obvious meaning and letter of the specified powers. But, he said, as if it was always the unfortunate destiny of these gentlemen to be upon extremes, they have now got round to the opposite extreme point of the political compass, and even beyond it. For, he said, they not only tie down all construction to the letter of the instrument, but they tell us that they see, and call upon us also to see written therein, in large capital characters, "the independence of judges;" which, to the extent they carry the meaning of the term, is neither to be found in the letter or spirit of that instrument, or in any other political establishment, he believed, under the sun. Mr. G. said he rejoiced that this subject was now to be discussed; he thought the crisis peculiarly auspicious for the discussion. He said the European world, with which the United States have the most relations, is now tranquillized. The tremendous scenes of blood and revolution which had agitated that portion of the globe, had at length subsided into profound peace; and had left mankind in silent amazement, to retrospect the wonderful events which were passed; and he hoped, with calm deliberation, to improve the lessons they had furnished for the benefit of mankind in time to come. The interests and sympathies, which the people of the United States felt in these events, no longer turn their attention from their internal concerns; arguments of the highest consideration for the safety of the constitution and the liberty of the citizens, no longer receive the short reply, French partisans! Jacobins! Disorganizers! And although the gentleman from North Carolina sees, or thinks he sees, the destructive spirit mount in the whirlwind and direct the storm, let him be consoled by the information, "that all these, our actors, are mere spirits, and are dissolved into thin air." Yes, sir, these magical delusions are now vanished, and have left the American people and their Congress, in their real persons, and original American characters, engaged in the transaction of American concerns.

He said he would now proceed to examine whether the repeal of the Judiciary law of the last session of Congress would in any respect violate that salutary and practicable independence of the judges which was secured to them by the constitution. He said the terms independence of Judges or of the Judiciary Department was not to be found in the constitution. It was therefore a mere inference from some of the specified powers. And he believed, in the meaning of gentlemen, and to the extent they carry it, that the term is not to be found either in the spirit, general character, or phraseology, of any article or section of the constitution. He meant to give the constitution the most candid interpretation in his power, according to the plain and obvious import of the English language. He should discard, in his interpretation, the terms "common defence and general welfare," which had been resorted to by some gentlemen. He considered these words as containing no grant of power whatever but merely the expression of the ends or objects to be effected by the grants of specified powers. He therefore protested against drawing any aid whatever from them in his construction of the instrument. He said he had read through the whole constitution, to enable him to form his opinion upon this question, for fear there might be in some hidden corner of it some provision which might demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the present bill; and if so, (although he should lament such a provision,) he would instantly give up the bill. But his researches had terminated in a different result. He said he found, from the general character of the constitution, that the general will was its basis, the general good its object, and the fundamental principle for effecting this object was the responsibility of all public agents, either mediately or immediately to the people. He said the context of the constitution would demonstrate the two first points, which he begged to read:

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Here we find the constitution founded upon the will of the people, and the object declared to be the good of the people. Through the whole body of the constitution may be discerned the responsibility of all public agents, either mediately or immediately, to the people. This responsibility results, first, from the division of authority into different departments; secondly, from a specification and limitation of the authorities of all and each of the departments; thirdly, from periodical appointments of the public agents. The first clause declares there shall be a Congress, to whom the business of legislation is confided. This Congress is to consist of a House of Representatives, to be chosen by the people immediately, and responsible to them at the end of every two years; and a Senate, to be chosen by the Legislatures of the different States, who are chosen by the people—one-third of the Senators to be chosen every two years, and responsible at the end of every six years. The Executive power is vested in a President, who is chosen by electors, who are chosen for the express purpose by the people, and responsible at the end of every four years. The President may be considered as immediately responsible to the people, although chosen through the medium of electors; because it is found, in practice, that the electors are constrained to avow the vote they intend to give before they are chosen, and the people have generally made their elections with a view to that object.

Thus, then, are formed two departments, their powers specified and defined, the times for extending their powers fixed, and indeed a complete organization for the execution of their respective powers, without the intervention of any law for that purpose. A third department, to wit, the Judiciary Department, is still wanting. Is that formed by the constitution? How is that to be formed? It is not formed by the constitution. It is only declared that there shall be such a department; and it is directed to be formed by the other two departments, who owe a responsibility to the people. Here there arises an important difference of opinion between the different sides of this House. It is contended on one side that the Judiciary Department is formed by the constitution itself. It is contended on the other side, that the constitution does no more than to declare that there shall be a Judiciary Department, and directs that it shall be formed by the other two departments, under certain modifications. Article third, section first, the constitution has these words: "The Judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress shall from time to time ordain and establish." Here, then, the power to ordain and establish inferior courts is given to Congress in the most unqualified terms, and also to ordain and establish "one Supreme Court." The only limitation upon the power of Congress in this clause, consists in the number of supreme courts to be established; the limitation is to the number of one, although that is an affirmative and not a negative expression. The number of judges, the assignation of duties, the fixing compensations, the fixing the times when, and places where, the courts shall exercise their functions, &c., are left to the entire discretion of Congress. The spirit, as well as the words of the constitution, are completely satisfied, provided one Supreme Court be established. Hence, when all these essential points in the organization and formation of courts are intrusted to the unlimited discretion of Congress, it cannot be said that the courts are formed by the constitution. For further restraints, therefore, upon the discretion of Congress, the remaining part of the same section must be consulted. Here he begged leave to remark, that he had often felt a veneration for the wisdom of the sages who formed this constitution; considering the difficulties they had to encounter, resulting from the various local prejudices and local interests of the different parts of the United States, and the vast variety of opinions which the subject presented, it was almost wonderful to conceive how they should have hit upon a system so admirably calculated to protect and to promote the general interests, when administered according to its original meaning and intention. He could not go so far as to say it was perfect. He admitted, like other human productions, it was stamped with the common fallibility of man. That he wished, however, to see no radical changes in its principles. He wished to hand it down to posterity with those amendments only which experience should suggest, and which would grow out of the continually varying state of the nation. He said it was not only remarkable for the wisdom of its arrangements, but the correct and technical mode of expression. The part of the section now to be examined, was an example of the justice of both these remarks. The words are, "the judges both of the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

The first part of the sentence respects the relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary Departments. It respects judges or officers of the courts who are appointed by the President. The last part of the sentence respects the relationship between the Legislative and Judiciary Departments. It respects the creation of offices, the fixing the compensation of the officers or judges, and their continuance in office. These are the peculiar attributes of the Legislative Department. Accordingly, the most correct and technical words are used in relation to both these objects. The term "hold their offices during good behavior," relates merely to the Executive Department. The term "hold," is the common technical word used to convey the idea of tenure. Tenure requires two parties. The one granting, the other holding or receiving the grant. Let the inquiry be made, of whom do the judges hold? The constitution furnishes the answer, of the President. One of the most obvious rules in the construction of instruments of writing is, that the whole of it must be taken together, and not one particular part by itself. The following words will be found in the second section of the second article of the constitution: "And he (to wit, the President) shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law." In the third section of the same article, are these words: "And shall (to wit, the President) commission all the officers of the United States." These three sentences contain the relationship between the Executive and Judiciary Departments, so far as respects the objects of the present discussion.

To ascertain the real meaning and import of these sentences, they should be read in connection with each other, excluding therefrom all intermediate words not immediately bearing on the subject. In that case the constitution would read thus: "He (to wit, the President) shall nominate and appoint the Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, and shall commission all the officers of the United States. The judges both of the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior." It may now be asked, if this case of the judges of the supreme and inferior courts be not an obvious exception out of the general Presidential discretion of appointing and commissioning all officers of the United States during pleasure? After the Government has been in operation above twelve years, and the principle of commissioning all Executive officers during pleasure, has been practised upon during the whole of the period by the Executive, as well as the Legislative Department, the propriety of that practice is for the first time now become questionable. It is said that the right to commission during pleasure, is by implication. It is readily admitted that there are no express words in the constitution to that effect; but the inference from the words which are there, is almost as strong as the words themselves, if they had been inserted. The President is authorized, without limitation, to "commission all the officers of the United States." The question arises, by what tenure? The reply is, according to his pleasure or discretion. It was not difficult to foresee, that if the President was fully empowered to commission as he pleased, he would please to commission during his pleasure. The Legislature has no more control over an officer who holds an Executive commission during the pleasure of the President, than over a Judicial officer holding his office during good behavior. The remedy given by the constitution being the same in both cases, to wit, impeachment. Nor is there any reason why the office of the one should be less subject to the discretion of the Legislature, than the office of the other; and it seems to be universally agreed, that although the Legislature cannot deprive an Executive officer of his office in any other way than by impeachment, during the continuance of such office, yet the office itself is always subject to be abolished. The same reasoning will hold with equal force respecting a judge and a Judicial office. The reason why the Executive is proscribed from the removal of a judge, is to secure to the judge a complete independence of the President, who is not responsible for the discharge of Judicial duties; but the removal is perfectly correct in the case of an Executive officer, because the President is highly responsible for the due discharge of Executive duties. The Legislature is not responsible for either, and of course stands in the same constitutional relation to both. This appears obvious from furnishing to the Legislature the same means of removing both, as will appear by the fourth section of the second article, in the following words: "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office by impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors." He now begged to call the attention of the committee particularly to the last clause of the sentence, which ascertains the constitutional connection between the Legislative and Judicial Departments, so far as respects the limitation of the Legislative, in the exercise of the power committed to it, for the organization of the Judicial Department. He should place particular emphasis on these words of the constitution in the exposition he proposed to make. The words are: "And shall at stated times receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." The first part of this section having given to Congress the power of creating courts, ascertaining the number of judges, &c., these last words may be considered as containing explanations and limitations of the general power of Congress, as was the foregoing part of this sentence a limitation of the general Executive power. And accordingly the most correct terms are used for limiting Legislative discretion, and explaining its objects; according to the words of this sentence, the judge is to receive a compensation for his services. To whom are these services to be rendered? To the people, for the benefit of the people. Who is to judge of the necessity or utility of these services? The constitution has ordained, that Congress, or, in other words, the Representatives of the people, shall be the tribunal. Suppose there should be no services required, none for the judge to perform, and that Congress should so think and determine: is the judge entitled to compensation? He is not. The condition of service for the benefit of the people, is the express consideration upon which the compensation accrues. No service is rendered, the competent tribunal says, there is none required, of course no compensation accrues. The judge is entitled to receive none. On this point, an obvious and most important difference of opinion exists between the two sides of the committee. On one side it is contended, that the office is the vested property of the judge, conferred on him by his appointment, and that his good behavior is the consideration of his compensation; so long, therefore, as his good behavior exists, so long his office must continue in consequence of his good behavior, and that his compensation is his property in virtue of his office, and therefore cannot be taken away by any authority whatever, although there may be no service for him to perform. On the other side, it is contended that the good behavior is not the consideration upon which the compensation accrues, but services rendered for the public good; and that if the office is to be considered as a property, it is a property held in trust for the benefit of the people, and must therefore be held subject to that condition, of which Congress is the constitutional judge. Mr. G. said, considering the boundary line between these conflicting opinions to be the boundary line between the offices held for public utility, and offices held for personal favor, he could not bestow too much attention upon this part of the discussion; for if the construction gentlemen contend for should prevail, in vain have the framers of the constitution, with so much jealous circumspection, erected so many ramparts against the introduction of some of these offices in the Government of the United States. A sinecure office is an office held without the condition of service; often for past services already compensated; often for present favor, without the condition of any service. For the purpose of excluding from the Federal Government all sinecure offices, the sages who formed the constitution have through every part of it connected services and compensation, and they ought never to be separated in construction. The sixth section of the first article is in these words: "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law," &c., and so far has this principle of the rendition of service been carried, that the service of the Senate and Representatives is to be rendered every day, and unless they do daily render service, they are not entitled to their day's compensation. In the first section of the second article of the constitution, are these words: "The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services a compensation," &c. In the forty-first section of the act under which the judges claim their compensation, are these words: "That each of the circuit judges of the United States, to be appointed by virtue of this act, shall be allowed as a compensation for his services," &c. These expressions all demonstrate the importance of coupling the service and compensation of office. But the jealous caution of the framers of the constitution did not stop at choosing the best affirmative expression for excluding this doctrine of sinecure offices, they also applied negative restraints.

In the ninth section of the first article of the constitution, are these words, "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law." In the same section, "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." If then services rendered for the public benefit be the essential consideration, upon which the compensation does accrue to the judges; if the Congress be the proper tribunal for pronouncing upon the necessity or utility of such service, and if they decide that no such service is necessary or useful; the judge sustains no injury in not receiving the compensation, because he does not comply with the condition on his part; nor does he sustain a hardship thereby, because it must be presumed that he understood the second conditions attached to his office at the time of his acceptance. It has been admitted by all gentlemen, that Congress is the constitutional tribunal for deciding respecting the services to be performed. They admit that Congress may modify the courts, diminish or add to their duties, alter the terms of their sessions, or make any other arrangements respecting them which do not go to take away or diminish their compensations. It is to be observed that there is not one of these powers specified in the constitution; they are therefore necessary inferences from the paramount power "to ordain and establish," and the power of repeal, or to take away all the services to be performed, is as necessary an inference as either of the others, and has uniformly resulted from every other specified power in the constitution. From this part of the sentence, therefore, it is deducible, that the only restraint upon the general power given to Congress in the first part of the section to ordain and establish courts, is, that the compensations of the judges should not be lessened during their continuance in office; not during their good behavior. And in this part of the sentence the correct phraseology of the constitution is worthy of observation. In speaking of the Executive attribute, to wit, the appointing and commissioning officers, the term good behavior is used. In speaking of the Legislative attribute, to wit, the creation of the offices and fixing compensations, the term during their continuance in office is used. The reason for this variation of expression is obvious. It was known that the office might be discontinued, and the judge continue to behave well; the limitation was therefore applied to the office, and not the good behavior, because if the office should be discontinued, which is clearly implied in this expression, it was not the intention of the constitution that the compensation should be received, no service in that event being to be rendered. From this interpretation of the constitution, all of the departments are preserved in the due exercise of their respective functions for the general good, without any of the mischievous and absurd consequences resulting from the opposite construction. It is admitted that the first part of this section expressly vests Congress with the general power to ordain and establish courts; and, if there had been no other restriction, the consequent power to unordain, or abolish. The restriction relied upon is not a restriction in express words: there are no words in the constitution prohibiting Congress from repealing a law for organizing courts; the restraint contended for, therefore, is by implication, and that implication, to say the least, not expressly connected with any Legislative attribute. Is it right, is it a correct interpretation, that when a power is given in express words for the most important purposes, that it should be restrained or prohibited by implication? Can so much inattention and folly be attributed to the framers of the constitution, as would result from the supposition that if it was their intention that a law growing out of one of the specified powers, in contradistinction to all others, should be irrepealable when once passed, that so extraordinary a principle would be left to mere implication? Such a supposition would be the highest injustice to the superior intelligence and patriotism of those gentlemen, manifested in every other part of the instrument. No, sir, they would have made notes of admiration: they would have used every mark, adopted every caution, to have arrested and fixed the attention of the Legislature to so extraordinary a principle.

They would have said, Legislators! Be circumspect! Be cautious! Be calm! Be deliberate! Be wise! Be wise not only for the present, but be wise for posterity! You are now about to tread upon holy ground. The law you are now about to pass, is irrepealable! Irrevokable! We are so enamored with the salutary and practical independence of the English Judiciary system, that in infusing its principle into our constitution, we have stamped it with the proverbial folly of the Medes and Persians! If this principle had been introduced into the constitution in express words, it would have formed an unfortunate contrast to all other parts of the instrument; yet gentlemen make no difficulty in introducing that principle by construction, which would have appeared so stupid and absurd if written in express words in the body of the instrument. But there is no such language in the constitution. Let us see what is the language of that instrument, "The Judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Here, then, instead of cautioning the Legislature that a law for the organization of courts, when passed, can never be repealed, it contains an invitation to a revision from time to time. It contains an intimation, that the subject is new and difficult, and an injunction to ordain and establish your courts from time to time, according to the results, which an experience of the system alone could suggest. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hemphill) observed that the character of irrepealability was not exclusively attached to this law, and attempted to furnish instances of other laws of the same character. He instanced a law for the admission of a new State into the Union.

The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) had given a proper reply to that remark; the strongest instance the gentleman gave, was of a law executed. After the new State is remitted into the Union, in virtue of a law for that purpose, the object of the law is answered. The State admitted has no stipulated duties to perform on its part, no services to render; in the case before the committee the law is in a state of execution, and the judges have services to render on their part which the competent tribunals may determine to be neither useful nor necessary. A law for the appropriation of money to a given object, may be adduced is an instance; the money is applied; its object is answered; the law may be said to be irrepealable, or, in other words, the repeal would produce no effect. That is not the case of the law in question. Mr. G. said he had no doubt but that the framers of the constitution had particular reference to the British act of Parliament of William III. for the establishment of the independence of the judges in that country, in framing the section for the establishment of the Judicial Department in the United States; and it is not a little remarkable, that whilst gentlemen in one breath speak of the independence of the English judges, as the boast and glory of that nation, in the next breath they tell us that by the repeal of the present act, the independence of the judges here would be immolated. Let this subject be examined. In the third chapter of the first book of Blackstone's Commentaries, the independence of the English Judiciary is fully explained. He begged to read the exposition of that commentator on that subject.

"And, in order to maintain both the dignity and independence of the judges of the superior courts, it is enacted by the statute, 13 W. III. c. 2, that their commissions shall be made (not, as formerly, durante bene placito, but) quam diu bene se gesserint, and their salaries ascertained and established; but that it may be lawful to remove them on the address of both Houses of Parliament. And now, by the noble improvements of that law in the statute of Geo. III. c. 23, enacted at the earnest recommendation of the King himself, from the Throne, the judges are continued in their offices during their good behavior, notwithstanding any demise of the Crown, (which was formerly held immediately to vacate their seats,) and their full salaries are absolutely secured to them during the continuance of their commissions. His Majesty having been pleased to declare, that "he looked upon the independence and uprightness of the judges, as essential to the impartial administration of justice; as one of the best securities of the rights and liberties of his subjects; and as the most conducive to the honor of the Crown.""

Now, sir, under the doctrine contended for by the repeal of this law, let us see whether the judges of the United States are not more independent than the judges of England. In the first place, Congress have the power of originating, abolishing, modifying, &c., the courts here. The Parliament in England have the same power there. Congress cannot remove a judicial officer from his office so long as the office itself is deemed useful, except by impeachment, two-thirds of the Senate being necessary to a conviction. In England, judges can be removed from their offices, although the offices may be deemed useful, by an address of the majority of the two Houses of Parliament. Here then is one essential advantage in favor of the independence of the judges of the United States. Congress cannot diminish the compensation of the judges here during their continuance in office. In England, the Parliament may diminish the compensation of the judges, at their discretion, during their continuance in office. Here, then, is another obvious advantage in favor of the independence of the judges of the United States; whence is it, then, that we hear of the independence of the English judiciary, as being the boast and glory of that country, and with justice, too, and at the same time hear the cry of the immolation of the independence of the judges of the United States, when, under the interpretation of the constitution by the favorers of the repeal, the judges here are more independent than the English judges? It can have no other object than to excite a popular clamor, which, if excited at all, can have only a momentary effect, and will be dissipated as soon as the subject shall be thoroughly examined and understood. But it appeared to him, that if gentlemen really do value the independence of the judges, they have taken an unfortunate ground in the interpretation of the constitution. Under their construction, the judges may be placed not only in a dependent, but a ludicrous point of view.

Gentlemen admit that Congress may constitutionally increase or diminish the duties of judges; give or take away jurisdiction; fix the times of holding courts, &c., saving therefrom the salaries of the judges. Under this admission, Congress may postpone the sessions of the courts for eight or ten years, and establish others, to whom they could transfer all the powers of the existing courts. In this case, the judges would be held up to the people as pensioners, receiving their money and rendering no service in return; or Congress might convert them into mere courts of piepoudre, assigning them the most paltry duties to perform, and keep them continually in session, in inconvenient places; whilst new courts could be erected to perform all the essential business of the nation. This would be taking down the high pretensions assigned to the judges by the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. Henderson,) of being formed into a permanent corps for the purpose of protecting the people against their worst enemies, themselves; and degrading them into pitiful courts of piepoudre, rendering little service and receiving large compensations. And this would be the case, if party purposes were the object, and not the general good. According to his construction, these absurd results could not take place, unless by a virtual breach of the constitution. Because, he contended, that service and compensation were correlative terms; and that there ought always to be a due apportionment of service to compensation. This he considered as the plain and sound interpretation of the constitution, and the moment it is departed from, infinite absurdities ensue. He intended to have taken another view of this subject, as it respects the relative influence of the law of the last session, and the proposed repeal upon this question; but the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Bacon) has put this subject in so much stronger point of view than he could do, that he would refer to his remarks thereupon, observing only that he had no doubt but that the law of last session, now proposed to be repealed, was, in every respect, as much opposed to the doctrine of gentlemen, as the contemplated repeal could be. The sections of the law particularly alluded to, are the twenty-fourth, in these words, "and be it further enacted, that the district courts of the United States, in and for the districts of Tennessee and Kentucky, shall be and are hereby abolished," and the twenty-seventh, in these words, "and be it further enacted, that the circuit courts of the United States, heretofore established, shall cease and be abolished."

Mr. G. concluded by observing that, upon the whole view of the subject, feeling the firmest conviction that there is no constitutional impediment in the way of repealing the act in question, upon the most fair and candid interpretation of the constitution:—believing that principles advanced in opposition, go directly to the destruction of the fundamental principle of the constitution, the responsibility of all public agents to the people—that they go to the establishment of a permanent corporation of individuals invested with ultimate censorial and controlling power over all the departments of the Government, over legislation, execution, and decision, and irresponsible to the people; believing that these principles are in direct hostility to the great principle of Representative Government; believing that the courts formerly established, were fully competent to the business they had to perform, and that the present courts are useless, unnecessary, and expensive; believing that the Supreme Court has heretofore discharged all the duties assigned to it in less than one month in the year, and that its duties could be performed in half that time; considering the compensations of the judges to be among the highest given to any of the highest officers of the United States for the services of the whole year; considering the compensations of all the judges greatly exceeding the services assigned them, as well as considering all the circumstances attending the substitution of the new system for the old one, by increasing the number of judges, and compensations, and lessening their duties by the distribution of the business into a great number of hands, &c., while acting under these impressions, he should vote against the motion now made for striking out the first section of the repealing bill.

Friday, February 19.

Judiciary System.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act to repeal certain acts respecting the organization of the Courts of the United States, and for other purposes."

Mr. Bayard.—Mr. Chairman, I must be allowed to express my surprise at the course pursued by the honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Giles,) in the remarks which he has made on the subject before us. I had expected that he would have adopted a different line of conduct. I had expected it as well from that sentiment of magnanimity which ought to have been inspired by a sense of the high ground he holds on the floor of this House, as from the professions of a desire to conciliate, which he has so repeatedly made during the session. We have been invited to bury the hatchet, and brighten the chain of peace. We were disposed to meet on middle ground. We had assurances from the gentleman that he would abstain from reflections on the past, and his only wish was that we might unite in future in promoting the welfare of our common country. We confided in the gentleman's sincerity, and cherished the hope that, if the divisions of party were not banished from the House, its spirit would be less intemperate. Such were our impressions, when the mask was suddenly thrown aside, and we saw the torch of discord lighted and blazing before our eyes. Every effort has been made to revive the animosities of the House, and inflame the passions of the nation. I am at no loss to perceive why this course has been pursued. The gentleman has been unwilling to rely upon the strength of his subject, and has therefore determined to make the measure a party question. He has probably secured success, but would it not have been more honorable and more commendable to have left the decision of a great constitutional question to the understanding, and not to the prejudices of the House? It was my ardent wish to discuss the subject with calmness and deliberation, and I did intend to avoid every topic which could awaken the sensibility of party. This was my temper and design when I took my seat yesterday. It is a course at present we are no longer at liberty to pursue. The gentleman has wandered far, very far, from the points of the debate, and has extended his animadversions to all the prominent measures of the former administrations. In following him through his preliminary observations, I necessarily lose sight of the bill upon your table.

The gentleman commenced his strictures with the philosophic observation, that it was the fate of mankind to hold different opinions as to the form of government which was preferable. That some were attached to the monarchal, while others thought the republican more eligible. This, as an abstract remark, is certainly true, and could have furnished no ground of offence, if it had not evidently appeared that an allusion was designed to be made to the parties in this country. Does the gentleman suppose that we have a less lively recollection than himself of the oath which we have taken to support the constitution; that we are less sensible of the spirit of our Government, or less devoted to the wishes of our constituents? Whatever impression it might be the intention of the gentleman to make, he does not believe that there exists in this country an anti-republican party. He will not venture to assert such an opinion on the floor of this House. That there may be a few individuals having a preference for monarchy is not improbable; but will the gentleman from Virginia, or any other gentleman, affirm, in his place, that there is a party in the country who wish to establish a monarchy? Insinuations of this sort belong not to the Legislature of the Union. Their place is an election ground or an alehouse. Within these walls they are lost; abroad, they have an effect, and I fear are still capable of abusing the popular credulity.

We were next told of the parties which have existed, divided by the opposite views of promoting the Executive power and guarding the rights of the people. The gentleman did not tell us in plain language, but he wished it to be understood, that he and his friends were the guardians of the people's rights, and that we were the advocates of Executive power.

I know that this is the distinction of party which some gentlemen have been anxious to establish; but this is not the ground on which we divide. I am satisfied with the constitutional powers of the Executive, and never wished nor attempted to increase them; and I do not believe that gentlemen on the other side of the House ever had a serious apprehension of danger from an increase of Executive authority. No, sir, our views as to the powers which do and ought to belong to the General and State Governments, are the true sources of our divisions. I co-operate with the party to which I am attached, because I believe their true object and end, is an honest and efficient support of the General Government, in the exercise of the legitimate powers of the constitution.

I pray to God I may be mistaken in the opinion I entertain as to the designs of gentlemen to whom I am opposed. Those designs I believe hostile to the powers of this Government. State pride extinguishes a national sentiment. Whatever is taken from this Government is given to the States.

The ruins of this Government aggrandize the States. There are States which are too proud to be controlled; whose sense of greatness and resource renders them indifferent to our protection, and induces a belief, that if no General Government existed, their influence would be more extensive, and their importance more conspicuous. There are gentlemen who make no secret of an extreme point of depression, to which the Government is to be sunk. To that point we are rapidly progressing. But I would beg gentlemen to remember, that human affairs are not to be arrested in their course, at artificial points. The impulse now given may be accelerated by causes at present out of view. And when those who now design well, wish to stop, they may find their powers unable to resist the torrent. It is not true that we ever wished to give a dangerous strength to Executive power. While the Government was in our hands, it was our duty to maintain its constitutional balance, by preserving the energies of each branch. There never was an attempt to vary the relation of its powers. The struggle was to maintain the constitutional powers of the Executive. The wild principles of French liberty were scattered through the country. We had our Jacobins and disorganizers. They saw no difference between a King and a President, and as the people of France had put down their King, they thought the people of America ought to put down their President. They who considered the constitution as securing all the principles of rational and practical liberty, who were unwilling to embark upon the tempestuous sea of revolution, in pursuit of visionary schemes, were denounced as monarchists. A line was drawn between the Government and the people, and the friends of the Government were marked as the enemies of the people. I hope, however, that the Government and the people are now the same; and I pray to God that what has been frequently remarked may not in this case be discovered to be true, that they who have the name of people the most often in their mouths, have their true interests the most seldom at their hearts.

The honorable gentleman from Virginia wandered to the very confines of the Federal Administration, in search of materials the most inflammable and most capable of kindling the passions of his party.

He represents the Government as seizing the first moment which presented itself to create a dependent moneyed interest, ever devoted to its views. What are we to understand by this remark of the gentleman? Does he mean to say that Congress did wrong in funding the public debt? Does he mean to say that the price of our liberty and independence ought not to have been paid? Is he bold enough to denounce this measure as one of the Federal victims marked for destruction? Is it the design to tell us that its day has not yet come, but is approaching; and that the funding system is to add to the pile of Federal ruins? Do I hear the gentleman say we will reduce the army to a shadow; we will give the navy to the worms; the mint, which presented the people with the emblems of their liberty, and of their sovereignty, we will abolish; the revenue shall depend upon the winds and waves; the judges shall be made our creatures, and the great work shall be crowned and consecrated by relieving the country from an odious and oppressive public debt? These steps, I presume, are to be taken in progression. The gentleman will pause at each, and feel the public pulse. As the fever increases he will proceed, and the moment of delirium will be seized to finish the great work of destruction.

The assumption of the State debts has been made an article of distinct crimination. It has been ascribed to the worst motives—to a design of increasing a dependent moneyed interest. Is it not well known that those debts were part of the price of our Revolution? That they rose in the exigency of our affairs, from the efforts of the particular States, at times when the Federal arm could not be extended to their relief? Each State was entitled to the protection of the Union, the defence was a common burden, and every State had a right to expect that the expenses attending its individual exertions in the general cause, would be reimbursed from the public purse. I shall be permitted further to add, that the United States, having absorbed the sources of State revenue, except direct taxation, which was required for the support of the State governments, the assumption of these debts was necessary to save some of the States from bankruptcy.

The internal taxes are made one of the crimes of the Federal Administration. They were imposed, says the gentleman, to create a host of dependents on Executive favor. This supposes the past administrations to have been not only very wicked, but very weak. They laid taxes in order to strengthen their influence. Who is so ignorant as not to know, that the imposition of a tax would create a hundred enemies for one friend? The name of excise was odious; the details of collection were unavoidably expensive, and it was to operate upon a part of the community least disposed to support public burdens, and most ready to complain of their weight. A little experience will give the gentleman a new idea of the patronage of this Government. He will find it not that dangerous weapon in the hands of the administration which he has heretofore supposed it; he will probably discover that the poison is accompanied by its antidote, and that an appointment of the Government, while it gives to the administration one lazy friend, will raise up against it ten active enemies. No! The motive ascribed for the imposition of the internal taxes is as unfounded as it is uncharitable. The Federal Administration, in creating burdens to support the credit of the nation, and to supply the means of its protection, knew that they risked the favor of those upon whom their power depended. They were willing to be the victims when the public good required.

The duties on imports and tonnage furnished a precarious revenue—a revenue at all times exposed to deficiency, from causes beyond our reach. The internal taxes offered a fund less liable to be impaired by accident—a fund which did not rob the mouth of labor, but was derived from the gratification of luxury. These taxes are an equitable distribution of the public burdens. Through this medium the Western country is enabled to contribute something to the expenses of a Government which has expended and daily expends such large sums for its defence. When these taxes were laid they were indispensable. With the aid of them it has been difficult to prevent an increase of the public debt. And notwithstanding the fairy prospects which now dazzle our eyes, I undertake to say, if you abolish them this session, you will be obliged to restore them or supply their place by a direct tax before the end of two years. Will the gentleman say, that the direct tax was laid in order to enlarge the bounds of patronage? Will he deny that this was a measure to which we had been urged for years by our adversaries, because they foresaw in it the ruin of Federal power? My word for it, no administration will ever be strengthened by a patronage united with taxes which the people are sensible of paying.

We were next told, that to get an army an Indian war was necessary. The remark was extremely bald, as the honorable gentleman did not allege a single reason for the position. He did not undertake to state that it was a wanton war, or provoked by the Government. He did not even venture to deny, that it was a war of defence, and entered into in order to protect our brethren on the frontiers from the bloody scalping-knife and murderous tomahawk of the savage. What ought the government to have done? Ought they to have estimated the value of the blood which probably would be shed, and the amount of the devastation likely to be committed before they determined on resistance? They raised an army, and after great expense and various fortune, they have secured the peace and safety of the frontiers. But why was the army mentioned on this occasion, unless to fore-warn us of the fate which awaits them, and to tell us that their days are numbered? I cannot suppose that the gentleman mentioned this little army, distributed on a line of three thousand miles, for the purpose of giving alarm to three hundred thousand free and brave yeomanry, ever ready to defend the liberties of the country.

The honorable gentleman proceeded to inform the committee, that the Government, availing itself of the depredations of the Algerines, created a navy. Did the gentleman mean to insinuate, that this war was invited by the United States? Has he any documents or proof to render the suspicion colorable? No, sir, he has none. He well knows that the Algerine aggressions were extremely embarrassing to the Government. When they commenced, we had no marine force to oppose to them. We had no harbors or places of shelter in the Mediterranean. A war with these pirates could be attended with neither honor nor profit. It might cost a great deal of blood, and in the end it might be feared that a contest so far from home, subject to numberless hazards and difficulties, could not be maintained. What would gentlemen have had the Government to do? I know there are those who are ready to answer: abandon the Mediterranean trade. But would this have done? The corsairs threatened to pass the Straits, and were expected in the Atlantic. Nay, sir, it was thought that our very coasts would not have been secure.

Will gentlemen go further, and say that the United States ought to relinquish their commerce. It has been said that we ought to be cultivators of the earth, and make the nations of Europe our carriers. This is not an occasion to examine the solidity of this opinion; but I will only ask, admitting the administration were disposed to turn the pursuits of the people of this country from the ocean to the land, whether there is a power in the Government, or whether there would be if we were as strong as the Government of Turkey, or even of France, to accomplish the object? With a sea-coast of seventeen hundred miles, with innumerable harbors and inlets, with a people enterprising beyond example, is it possible to say, you will have no ships or sailors, nor merchants? The people of this country will never consent to give up their navigation, and every administration will find themselves constrained to provide means to protect their commerce.

In respect to the Algerines, the late administration were singularly unfortunate. They were obliged to fight or pay them. The true policy was to hold a purse in one hand and a sword in the other. This was the policy of the Government. Every commercial nation in Europe was tributary to those petty barbarians. It was not esteemed disgraceful. It was an affair of calculation, and the administration made the best bargain in their power. They have heretofore been scandalized for paying tribute to a pirate, and now they are criminated for preparing a few frigates to protect our citizens from slavery and chains! Sir, I believe on this and many other occasions, if the finger of Heaven had pointed out a course, and the Government had pursued it, yet that they would not have escaped the censure and reproaches of their enemies.

We were told that the disturbances in Europe were made a pretext for augmenting the army and navy. I will not, Mr. Chairman, at present go into a detailed view of the events which compelled the Government to put on the armor of defence, and to resist by force the French aggressions. All the world know the efforts which were made to accomplish an amicable adjustment of differences with that power. It is enough to state, that ambassadors of peace were twice repelled from the shores of France with ignominy and contempt. It is enough to say, that it was not till after we had drunk the cup of humiliation to the dregs, that the national spirit was roused to a manly resolution, to depend only on their God and their own courage for protection. What, sir, did it grieve the gentleman that we did not crouch under the rod of the Mighty Nation, and, like the petty powers of Europe, tamely surrender our independence? Would he have had the people of the United States relinquish without a struggle those liberties which had cost so much blood and treasure? We had not, sir, recourse to arms, till the mouths of our rivers were choked with French corsairs; till our shores, and every harbor, were insulted and violated; till half our commercial capital had been seized, and no safety existed for the remainder but the protection of force. At this moment a noble enthusiasm electrized the country; the national pulse beat high, and we were prepared to submit to every sacrifice, determined only that our independence should be the last. At that time an American was a proud name in Europe; but I fear, much I fear, that in the course we are now likely to pursue, the time will soon arrive when our citizens abroad will be ashamed to acknowledge their country.

The measures of 1798 grew out of the public feelings; they were loudly demanded by the public voice. It was the people who drove the Government to arms, and not (as the gentleman expressed it) the Government which pushed the people to the X, Y, Z of the political designs before they understood the A, B, C of their political principles.

But what, sir, did the gentleman mean by his X, Y, Z? I must look for something very significant—something more than a quaintness of expression, or a play upon words—in what falls from a gentleman of his learning and ability. Did he mean that the dispatches which contained those letters were impostures, designed to deceive and mislead the people of America—intended to rouse a false spirit not justified by events? Though the gentleman had no respect for some of the characters of that embassy; though he felt no respect for the Chief Justice, or the gentleman appointed from South Carolina—two characters as pure, as honorable, as exalted, as any the country can boast of—yet I should have expected that he would have felt some tenderness for Mr. Gerry, in whom his party had since given proofs of undiminished confidence. Does the gentleman believe that Mr. Gerry would have joined in the deception, and assisted in fabricating a tale which was to blind his countrymen, and to enable the Government to destroy their liberties? Sir, I will not avail myself of the equivocations or confessions of Talleyrand himself; I say these gentlemen will not dare publicly to deny what is attested by the hand and seal of Mr. Gerry.

The truth of these despatches admitted, what was your Government to do? Give us, say the Directory, 1,200,000 livres for our own purse, and purchase $15,000,000 of Dutch debt, (which was worth nothing,) and we will receive your Ministers, and negotiate for peace.

It was only left to the Government to choose between an unconditional surrender of the honor and independence of the country, or a manly resistance. Can you blame, sir, the Administration for a line of conduct which has reflected on the nation so much honor, and to which, under God, it owes its present prosperity?

These are the events of the General Government which the gentleman has reviewed in succession, and endeavored to render odious or suspicious. For all this I could have forgiven him, but there is one thing for which I will not, I cannot forgive him—I mean this attempt to disturb the ashes of the dead; to disturb the ashes of the great and good Washington! Sir, I might degrade by attempting to eulogize this illustrious character. The work is infinitely beyond my powers. I will only say, that as long as exalted talents and virtues confer honor among men, the name of Washington will be held in veneration.

After, Mr. Chairman, the honorable member had exhausted one quiver of arrows against the late Executive, he opened another, equally poisoned, against the Judiciary. He has told us, sir, that when the power of the Government was rapidly passing from Federal hands—after we had heard the thundering voice of the people which dismissed us from their service—we erected a Judiciary, which we expected would afford us the shelter of an inviolable sanctuary. The gentleman is deceived. We knew better, sir, the characters who were to succeed us, and we knew that nothing was sacred in the eyes of infidels. No, sir, I never had a thought that any thing belonging to the Federal Government was holy in the eyes of those gentlemen. I could never, therefore, imagine that a sanctuary could be built up which would not be violated. I believe these gentlemen regard public opinion, because their power depends upon it; but I believe they respect no existing establishment of the Government; and if public opinion could be brought to support them, I have no doubt they would annihilate the whole. I shall at present only say further, on this head, that we thought the reorganization of the Judicial system a useful measure, and we consider it as a duty to employ the remnant of our power to the best advantage of our country.

The honorable gentleman expressed his joy that the constitution had at last become sacred in our eyes: that we formerly held that it meant every thing or nothing. I believe, sir, that the constitution formerly appeared different in our eyes from what it appears in the eyes of the dominant party. We formerly saw in it the principles of a fair and goodly creation. We looked upon it as a source of peace, of safety, of honor, and of prosperity to the country. But now the view is changed; it is the instrument of wild and dark destruction; it is a weapon which is to prostrate every establishment to which the nation owes the unexampled blessings which it enjoys.

The present state of the country is an unanswerable commentary upon our construction of the constitution. It is true that we made it mean much; and hope, sir, we shall not be taught by the present Administration that it can mean even worse than nothing.

The gentleman has not confined his animadversions to the individual establishment, but has gone so far as to make the judges the subject of personal invective. They have been charged with having transgressed the bounds of Judicial duty, and become the apostles of a political sect. We have heard of their travelling about the country for little other purpose than to preach the Federal doctrines to the people.

Sir, I think a judge should never be a partisan. No man would be more ready to condemn a judge who carried his political prejudices or antipathies on the bench. But I have still to learn that such a charge can be sustained against the judges of the United States.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and they have taken pains, in their charges to grand juries, to unfold and explain its principles. Upon similar occasions they have enumerated the laws which compose our criminal code, and when some of those laws have been denounced by the enemies of the Administration as unconstitutional, the judges may have felt themselves called upon to express their judgments upon that point, and the reasons of their opinions.

So far, but no farther, I believe, the judges have gone. In going thus far, they have done nothing more than faithfully discharge their duty.

But if, sir, they have offended against the constitution or laws of the country, why are they not impeached? The gentleman now holds the sword of justice. The judges are not a privileged order; they have no shelter but their innocence. But, in any view, are the sins of the former judges to be fastened upon the new Judicial system? Would you annihilate a system because some men under part of it had acted wrong? The constitution has pointed out a mode of punishing and removing the men, and does not leave this miserable pretext for the wanton exercise of powers which is now contemplated.

The honorable member has thought himself justified in making a charge of a serious and frightful nature against the judges. They have been represented going about searching out victims of the Sedition law. But no fact has been stated; no proof has been adduced, and the gentleman must excuse me for refusing my belief to the charge, till it is sustained by stronger and better ground than assertion.

If, however, Mr. Chairman, the eyes of the gentlemen are delighted with victims, if objects of misery are grateful to his feelings, let me turn his view from the walks of the judges to the track of the present Executive. It is in this path we see the real victims of stern, uncharitable, unrelenting power. It is here, sir, we see the soldier who fought the battles of the Revolution, who spilt his blood and wasted his strength to establish the independence of his country, deprived of the reward of his services, and left to pine in penury and wretchedness. It is along this path that you may see helpless children crying for bread, and gray hairs sinking in sorrow to the grave! It is here that no innocence, no merit, no truth, no services, can save the unhappy sectary who does not believe in the creed of those in power. I have been forced upon this subject, and before I leave it, allow me to remark, that without inquiring into the right of the President to make vacancies in office during the recess of the Senate, but admitting the power to exist, yet that it never was given by the constitution to enable the Chief Magistrate to punish the insults, to revenge the wrongs, or to indulge the antipathies of the man. If the discretion exists, I have no hesitation in saying that it is abused when exercised from any other motives than the public good. And when I see the will of a President precipitating from office men of probity, knowledge, and talents, against whom the community has no complaint, I consider it as a wanton and dangerous abuse of power. And when I see men who have been the victims of this abuse of power, I view them as the proper objects of national sympathy and commiseration.

Among the causes of impeachment against the judges, is their attempt to force the sovereignties of the States to bow before them. We have heard them called an ambitious body politic; and the fact I allude to has been considered as full proof of the inordinate ambition of the body.

Allow me to say, sir, the gentleman knows too much not to know that the judges are not a body politic. He supposed, perhaps, there was an odium attached to the appellation, which it might serve his purposes to connect with the judges. But, sir, how do you derive any evidence of the ambition of the judges from their decision that the States under our Federal compact were compellable to do justice? Can it be shown, or even said, that the judgment of the court was a false construction of the constitution? The policy of later times on this point has altered the constitution, and, in my opinion, has obliterated its fairest features. I am taught by my principles that no power ought to be superior to justice. It is not that I wish to see the States humbled in dust and ashes; it is not that I wish to see the pride of any man flattered by their degradation; but it is that I wish to see the great and the small, the sovereign and the subject, bow at the altar of justice, and submit to those obligations from which the Deity himself is not exempt. What was the effect of this provision in the constitution? It prevented the States being the judges in their own cause, and deprived them of the power of denying justice. Is there a principle of ethics more clear than that a man ought not to be a judge in his own cause, and is not the principle equally strong when applied not to one man but to a collective body? It was the happiness of our situation which enabled us to force the greatest State to submit to the yoke of justice, and it would have been the glory of the country in the remotest times, if the principle in the constitution had been maintained. What had the States to dread? Could they fear injustice when opposed to a feeble individual? Has a great man reason to fear from a poor one? And could a potent State be alarmed by the unfounded claim of a single person? For my part I have always thought that an independent tribunal ought to be provided to judge on the claims against this Government. The power ought not to be in our own hands. We are not impartial, and are therefore liable, without our knowledge, to do wrong. I never could see why the whole community should not be bound by as strong an obligation to do justice to an individual, as one man is bound to do it to another.

In England the subject has a better chance for justice against the Sovereign than in this country a citizen has against a State. The Crown is never its own arbiter, and they who sit in judgment have no interest in the event of their decision.

The judges, sir, have been criminated for their conduct in relation to the Sedition act, and have been charged with searching for victims who were sacrificed under it. The charge is easily made, but has the gentleman the means of supporting it? It was the evident design of the gentleman to attach the odium of the Sedition law to the Judiciary; on this score the Judges are surely innocent. They did not pass the act; the Legislature made the law, and they were obliged by their oaths to execute it. The judges decided the law to be constitutional, and I am not now going to agitate the question. I did hope, when the law passed, that its effect would be useful. It did not touch the freedom of speech, and was designed only to restrain the enormous abuses of the press. It went no farther than to punish malicious falsehoods, published with the wicked intention of destroying the Government. No innocent man ever did or could have suffered under the law. No punishment could be inflicted till a jury was satisfied that a publication was false, and that the party charged, knowing it to be false, had published it with an evil design.

The misconduct of the judges, however, on this subject, has been considered by the gentleman the more aggravated, by an attempt to extend the principles of the Sedition act, by an adoption of those of the common law. Connected with this subject, such an attempt was never made by the judges. They have held, generally, that the Constitution of the United States was predicated upon an existing common law. Of the soundness of that opinion, I never had a doubt. I should scarcely go too far, were I to say, that, stripped of the common law, there would be neither constitution nor Government. The constitution is unintelligible without reference to the common law. And were we to go into our courts of justice with the mere statutes of the United States, not a step could be taken, not even a contempt could be punished. Those statutes prescribe no forms of pleadings; they contain no principles of evidence; they furnish no rule of property. If the common law does not exist in most cases, there is no law but the will of the judge.

I have never contended that the whole of the common law attached to the constitution, but only such parts as were consonant to the nature and spirit of our Government. We have nothing to do with the law of the Ecclesiastical Establishment, nor with any principle of monarchical tendency. What belongs to us, and what is unsuitable, is a question for the sound discretion of the judges. The principle is analogous to one which is found in the writings of all jurists and commentators. When a colony is planted, it is established subject to such parts of the law of the mother country as are applicable to its situation. When our forefathers colonized the wilderness of America, they brought with them the common law of England. They claimed it as their birthright, and they left it as the most valuable inheritance to their children. Let me say, that this same common law, now so much despised and vilified, is the cradle of the rights and liberties which we now enjoy. It is to the common law we owe our distinction from the colonists of France, of Portugal, and of Spain. How long is it since we have discovered the malignant qualities which are now ascribed to this law? Is there a State in the Union which has not adopted it, and in which it is not in force? Why is it refused to the Federal Constitution? Upon the same principle that every power is denied which tends to invigorate the Government. Without this law the constitution becomes, what perhaps many gentlemen wish to see it, a dead letter.

For ten years it has been the doctrine of our courts, that the common law was in force, and yet can gentlemen say, that there has been a victim who has suffered under it? Many have experienced its protection, none can complain of its oppression.

In order to demonstrate the aspiring ambition of this body politic, the Judiciary, the honorable gentleman stated with much emphasis and feeling that the judges had been hardy enough to send their mandate into the Executive cabinet. Was the gentleman, sir, acquainted with the fact when he made this statement? It differs essentially from what I know I have heard upon the subject. I shall be allowed to state the fact.

Several commissions had been made out by the late Administration for justices of the peace of this Territory. The commissions were complete; they were signed and sealed, and left with the clerks of the office of State to be handed to the persons appointed. The new Administration found them on the Clerk's table, and thought proper to withhold them. These officers are not dependent on the will of the President. The persons named in the commissions considered that their appointments were complete, and that the detention of their commissions was a wrong, and not justified by the legitimate authority of the Executive. They applied to the Supreme Court for a rule upon the Secretary of State, to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding him to deliver up the commissions. Let me ask, sir, what could the judges do? The rule to show cause was a matter of course upon a new point, at least doubtful. To have denied it, would have been to shut the doors of justice against the parties. It concludes nothing, neither the jurisdiction nor the regularity of the act. The judges did their duty; they gave an honorable proof of their independence. They listened to the complaint of an individual against your President, and have shown themselves disposed to grant redress against the greatest man in the Government. If a wrong has been committed, and the constitution authorizes their interference, will gentlemen say that the Secretary of State, or even the President, is not subject to law? And if they violate the law, where can we apply for redress but to our courts of justice? But, sir, it is not true that the judges issued their mandate to the Executive; they have only called upon the Secretary of State to show them that what he has done is right. It is but an incipient proceeding which decides nothing.

To show the inexpediency of the present bill, I shall endeavor to prove the expediency of the judicial law of the last session. In doing this it will be necessary to take a view of the leading features of the pre-existing system, to inquire into its defects, and to examine how far the evils complained of were remedied by the provisions of the late act. It is not my intention to enter into the details of the former system; it can be necessary only to state so much as will distinctly show its defects.

There existed, sir, a Supreme Court, having original cognizance in a few cases, but principally a court of appellate jurisdiction. This was the great national court of dernier resort. Before this tribunal, questions of unlimited magnitude and consequence, both of a civil and political nature, received their final decision; and I may be allowed to call it the national crucible of justice, in which the judgments of inferior courts were to be reduced to their elements and cleansed from every impurity. There was a Circuit Court, composed in each district of a judge of the Supreme Court and the district judge. This was the chief court of business both of a civil and criminal nature.

In each district a court was established for affairs of revenue, and of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. It is not necessary for the purposes of the present argument to give a more extensive outline of the former plan of our Judiciary. We discover that the judges of the Supreme Court, in consequence of their composing a part of the circuit courts, were obliged to travel from one extremity to the other of this extensive country. In order to be in the court-house two months in the year they were forced to be upon the road six. The Supreme Court being the court of last resort, having final jurisdiction over questions of incalculable importance, ought certainly to be filled with men not only of probity, but of great talents, learning, patience, and experience. The union of these qualities is rarely, very rarely found in men who have not passed the meridian of life. My Lord Coke tells us no man is fit to be a judge until he has numbered the lucubrations of twenty years. Men of studious habits are seldom men of strong bodies. In the course of things it could not be expected that men fit to be judges of your Supreme Courts would be men capable of traversing the mountains and wildernesses of this extensive country? It was an essential and great defect in this court, that it required in men the combination of qualities, which it is a phenomenon to find united. It required that they should possess the learning and experience of years and the strength and activity of youth. I may say further, Mr. Chairman, that this court, from its constitution, tended to deterioration and not to improvement. Your judges, instead of being in their closets and increasing by reflection and study their stock of wisdom and knowledge, had not even the means of repairing the ordinary waste of time. Instead of becoming more learned and more capable, they would gradually lose the fruits of their former industry. Let me ask if this was not a vicious construction of a court of the highest authority and greatest importance in the nation? In a court from which no one had an appeal and to whom it belonged to establish the leading principles of national jurisprudence?

In the constitution of this court, as a court of last resort, there was another essential defect. The appeals to this court are from the circuit courts. The circuit court consists of the district judge and a judge of the Supreme Court. In cases where the district judge is interested, where he has been counsel, and where he has decided in the court below, the judge of the Supreme Court alone composes the circuit court. What, then, is substantially the nature of this appellate jurisdiction? In truth and practice, the appeal is from a member of a court to the body of the same court. The circuit courts are but emanations of the Supreme Court. Cast your eyes upon the Supreme Court; you see it disappear, and its members afterwards arising in the shape of circuit judges. Behold the circuit judges; they vanish, and immediately you perceive the form of the Supreme Court appearing. There is, sir, a magic in this arrangement which is not friendly to justice. When the Supreme Court assembles, appeals come from the various circuits of the United States. There are appeals from the decisions of each judge. The judgments of each member pass in succession under the revision of the whole body. Will not a judge, while he is examining the sentence of a brother to-day, remember that that brother will sit in judgment upon his proceedings to-morrow? Are the members of a court thus constituted, free from all motive, exempt from all bias, which could even remotely influence opinion on the point of strict right? and yet let me ask emphatically, whether this court, being the court of final resort, should not be so constituted that the world should believe and every suitor be satisfied, that in weighing the justice of a cause, nothing entered the scales but its true merits?

Your Supreme Court, sir, I have never considered as any thing more than the judges of assize sitting in bank. It is a system with which perhaps I should find no fault, if the judges sitting in bank did not exercise a final jurisdiction. Political institutions should be so calculated as not to depend upon the virtues, but to guard against the vices and weaknesses of men. It is possible that a judge of the Supreme Court would not be influenced by the esprit du corps, that he would neither be gratified by the affirmance, nor mortified by the reversal of his opinions; but this, sir, is estimating the strength and purity of human nature upon a possible, but not on its ordinary scale.

I believe, said Mr. B., that in practice the formation of the Supreme Court frustrated, in a great degree, the design of its institution. I believe that many suitors were discouraged from seeking a revision of the opinions of the circuit court, by a deep impression of the difficulties to be surmounted in obtaining the reversal of the judgment of a court from the brethren of the judge who pronounced the judgment. The benefit of a court of appeals, well constituted, is not confined to the mere act of reviewing the sentence of an inferior court; but is more extensively useful by the general operation of the knowledge of its existence upon inferior courts. The power of uncontrollable decision is of the most delicate and dangerous nature. When exercised in the courts, it is more formidable than by any other branch of our government. It is the Judiciary only which can reach the person, the property, or life of an individual. The exercise of their power is scattered over separate cases, and creates no common cause. The great safety under this power arises from the right of appeal. A sense of this right combines the reputation of the judge with the justice of the cause. In my opinion, it is a strong proof of the wisdom of a judicial system when few causes are carried into the court of the last resort. I would say, if it were not paradoxical, that the very existence of a court of appeals ought to destroy the occasion for it. The conscience of the judge, sir, will no doubt be a great check upon him in the unbounded field of discretion created by the uncertainty of law; but I should, in general cases, more rely upon the effect produced by his knowledge, that an inadvertent or designed abuse of power was liable to be corrected by a superior tribunal. A court of appellate jurisdiction, organized upon sound principles, should exist, though few causes arose for their decision; for it is surely better to have a court and no causes, than to have causes and no court. I now proceed, sir, to consider the defects which are plainly discernible, or which have been discovered by practice in the constitution of the circuit courts. These courts, from information which I have received, I apprehend were originally constructed upon a fallacious principle. I have heard it stated that the design of placing the judges of the Supreme Court in the circuit courts, was to establish uniform rules of decision throughout the United States. It was supposed that the presiding judges of the circuit courts, proceeding from the same body, would tend to identify the principles and rules of decision in the several districts. In practice, a contrary effect has been discovered to be produced by the peculiar organization of these courts. In practice we have found not only a want of uniformity of rule between the different districts, but no uniformity of rule in the same district. No doubt there was a uniformity in the decisions of the same judge; but as the same judge seldom sat twice successively in the same district, and sometimes not till after an interval of two or three years, his opinions were forgotten or reversed before he returned. The judges were not educated in the same school. The practice of the courts, the forms of proceeding, as well as the rules of property, are extremely various in the different quarters of the United States. The lawyers of the Eastern, the Middle, and Southern States, are scarcely professors of the same science. These courts were in a state of perpetual fluctuation. The successive terms gave you courts in the same district, as different from each other as those of Connecticut and Virginia. No system of practice could grow up, no certainty of rule could be established. The seeds sown in one term scarcely vegetated before they were trodden under foot. The condition of a suitor was terrible; the ground was always trembling under his feet. The opinion of a former judge was no precedent to his successor. Each considered himself bound to follow the light of his own understanding. To exemplify these remarks, I will take the liberty of stating a case which came under my own observation. An application before one judge was made to quash an attachment in favor of a subsequent execution creditor; the application was resisted upon two grounds, and the learned judge, to whom the application was first made, expressing his opinion in support of both grounds, dismissed the motion. At the succeeding court, a different judge presided, and the application was renewed and answered upon the same grounds. The second learned judge was of opinion, that one point has no validity, but he considered the other sustainable, and was about also to dismiss the motion, but upon being pressed, at last consented to grant a rule to show cause. At the third term, a third learned judge was on the bench, and though the case was urged upon its former principles, he was of opinion, that both answers to the application were clearly insufficient, and accordingly quashed the attachment. When the opinions of his predecessors were cited, he replied, that every man was to be saved by his own faith.