Page 2

We are told that we may violate
our constitution, because fimiliar con-
stitutions have been violated else-
where. Two states have been cited
to that effect, Maryland and Virginia.
The hon. gentleman from Virginia
tells us that when this happened in
the state he belongs to, no complaint
was made by the judges. I will not
enquire into that fact, although I have
the protest of the judges now lying
before me. Judges eminent for their
learning, respectable for their virtue.
I will not enquire what constitutions
have been violated. I will not ask
either when or where this dangerous
practice began, or has been followed.
I will admit the fact. What does it
prove? Does it prove that because
they have violated, we also may vio-
late? Does it not prove directly the
contrary? Is it not the strongest rea-
son on earth for preserving the inde-
pendence of our tribunals? If it be
true that they have with strong hand
seized their courts, and bent them to
their will, ought we not to give sui-
tors a fair chance for justice in our
courts, or must the suffering citizen be
deprived of all protection?

The gentleman from Virginia has
called our attention to certain cases
which he considers as forming neces-
sary exceptions to the principles for
which we contend. Permit me to
say that necessity is a bad law; and
frequently proves too much; and let
the gentleman recollect that arguments
which prove too much prove nothing.

He has instanced a case where it may
be proper to appoint commissioners for
a limited time to settle some particular
discription of controversies. Un-
doubtedly it is always in the power of
congress to form a board of commis-
sioners for particular purposes. He
asks are these inferior courts, & must
they also exist forever? I answer that
the nature of their offices must depend
on the law by which they are created,
if called to exercise the judicial func-
tions designated by the consitution
they must have an existence confor-
mable to its injunctions.

Again he has instanced the Missi-
sippi Territory, claimed by, and which
may be surrendered to the state of
Georgia, & a part of the union which
may be conquered by a foreign ene-
my. And he asks triumphantly are
our inferior courts to remain after our
jurisdiction is gone? This case rests
upon a principle so simple that I am
surprised the honorable member did
not perceive the answer in the very
moment when he made the objection.
Is it by our act that a country is ta-
ken from us by a foreign enemy? Is
it by our consent that our jurisdiction
is lost? I had the honor, in speaking
the other day, expressly and for the
most obvious reasons, to except the
case of conquest. As well might we
contend for the government of a town
swallowed up by an earthquake.

General Mason explained - He had
supposed the case of territory conquer-
ed and afterwards ceded to the con-
querer, or some other territory ceded
in lieu of it.

Mr. Morris, The case is precise-
ly the same. Until after the peace
the conquest is not complete. Every
body knows that until the cession by
treaty, the original owner has the post-
liminary right to a territory taken from
him - Beyond all question where con-
gress are compelled to cede the terri-
tory, the judges can no longer exist
unless the new sovereign confer the
office. Over such a territory the au-
thority of the constitution ceases, and
of course the rights which it confers.

It is laid, the judicial institution is
intended for the benefit of the people,
and not of the judge; and it is com-
plained of, that in speaking of the of-
fice, we say it is his office. Undoubt-
edly the institution is for the benefit of
the people. But the question remains
how will it be rendered most benefici-
al? Is it by making the judge inde-
pendent, by making it his office, or is
it by placing him in a state of abject
dependence, so that the office shall be
his to-day and belong to another to-
morrow? Let the gentleman hear the
words of the constitution; it speaks of
their offices, consequently as applied
to a single judge of his office, to be
exercised by him for the benefit of the
people of America, to which exercise
his independence is as necessary as his
office.

The gentleman from Virginia has
on this occasion likened the judge to a
bridge, and to various other objects;
but I hope for his pardon, if while I
admire the lofty flights of his elo-
quence, I abstain from noticing ob-
servations which I conceive to be ut-
terly irrelevant.

The fame hon. member has not on-
ly given us his history of the supreme
court, but has told us of the manner
in which they do business, and expres-
sed his fears that having little else to
do, they will do mischief. - We are
not competent, sir, to examine, nor
ought we to prejudge, their conduct.
I am persuaded that they will do their
duty, and presume they will have the
decency to believe that we do our du-
ty. In so far as they may be busied
with the great mischief of checking
the legislative or executive depart-
ments in any wanton invasion of our
rights, I shall rejoice in that mischief.
- I hope indeed they will not be so
busied, because I hope we shall give
them no cause. But also I hope they
will keep an eagle eye upon us left we
should. It was partly for this pur-
pose they were established, and I trust
that when properly called on they
will dare to act. I know this doc-
trine is unpleasant. I know it is more
popular to appeal to public opinion,
that equivocal, transient being, which
exists no where and every where. But
if ever the occasion call for it, I trust
that the supreme court will not neg-
lect doing the great mischief of having
this constitution, which can be done
much better by their deliberations,
than by resorting to what are called
revolutionary measures.

The hon. member from North-
Carolina, sore prest by the delicate si-
tuation in which he is placed, thinks
he has discovered a new argument in
favor of the vote which he is instruc-
ted to give. As far as I can enter
into his ideas, and trace their progress,
he seems to have assumed the position
which was to be proved, and then
searched through the constitution, not
to discover whether the legislature
have the right contended for, but
whether, admitting them to possess it,
there may not be something which
might comport with that idea. I
shall state the honorable member's ar-
guments, as I understand it, and if
mistaken pray to be corrected. He
read to us that clause which relates to
impeachment, and comparing it with
that which fixes the tenure of judicial
office, has observed that this clause
must relate solely to a removal by the
executive power whose right to re
move though not indeed any where
mentioned in the constitution, has been
admitted in a practice founded on le-
gislative construction.

That is the tenure of the office is
during good behavior, be as the clause
respecting impeachment, does not spe-
cify misbehavior, there is evidently a
cause of removal, which cannot be
reached by impeachment, & of course
(the executive not being permitted to
remove) the right must necessarily de-
volve on the legislature. Is this the
honorable member's argument? If it
be, the reply is very simple. Misbe-
havor is not a term known in our law.
- The idea is expressed by the word
misdemeanor; which word is in the
clause quoted respecting impeach-
ment. Taking therefore the two
together, and speaking plain old Eng-
lish, the constitution says: 'The
judges shall hold their offices as long
as they shall demean themselves well,
but if they shall misdemean, if they
shall on impeachment be convicted of
misdemeanor, they shall be removed.
Thus, sir, the honorable member will
find that the one clause is just as broad
as the other. He will see, therefore,
that the legislature can assume no right
from the deficiency of either, and will
find that this clause which he relied on
goes, if rightly understood, to the con-
firmation of our doctrine.

Is there a member of this house,
who can lay his hand on his heart and
say that consistently with the plain
words of our constitution, we have a
right to repeal this law? I believe
not. And if we undertake to con-
strue this constitution to our purposes,
and say that public opinion is to be
our judge, there is an end to all con-
stitutions. To what will not this dan-
gerous doctrine lead? Should it to
day be the popular wish to destroy the
first magistrate, you can destroy him.
And should he to-morrow be able to
conciliate to him the popular will, &
lead them to wish for your destruc-
tion, it is easily effected. Adopt this
principle, and the whim of the mo
ment will not only be the law, but the
constitution of our country.

The gentleman from Virginia has
mentioned a great nation brought to
the feet of one of her servants. But
why is she in that situation? Is it not
because popular opinion was called on
to decide every thing, until those, who
wore bayonets, decided for all the rest.
Our situation is peculiar. At present
our national compact can prevent a
state from acting hostile towards the
general interest. But let this compact
be destroyed and each state becomes
instantaneously vested with absolute
sovereignty. - Is there no instance of
a similar situation to be found in
history? Look at the states of Greece.
They were once in a condition not
unlike to that in which we should then
stand. They treated the recommen-
dations of their Amphictionic Coun-
cil (which was more a meeting of
ambassadors than a legislative assem-
bly) as we did the resolutions of the
old congress. Are we wise? So were
they. - Are we valient? They also
were brave. - Have we one common
language, and are we united under one
head? In this also there is a strong
resemblance. But by their divisions,
they became at first victims of the
ambition of Philip, and were at length
swallowed up in the Roman empire.
Are we to form an exception to the
general principles of human nature,
and to all the examples of history?
Are are the maxims of experience to
become false, when applied to our fate?

Some, indeed, flatter themselves,
that our distiny will be like that of
Rome. Such indeed it might be if
we had the same wise but vile aristo-
cracy under whose guidance they be-
came the masters of the world. But
we have not that strong aristocratic
arm, which can seize a wretched citi-
zen, scourged almost to death by a
remorseless creditor, turn him into the
ranks, and bid him as a soldier bear
our Eagle in triumph round the globe.
I hope to God we shall never have
such an abominable institution. But
what, I ask, will be the situation of
these States (organized as they now
are) if by the dissolution of our nati-
onal compact they be left to them-
selves? What is the probably result?
We shall either be the victims of fo-
reign intrigue, and split into factions,
fall under the denomination of a fo-
reign power, or else after the misery
and torment of civil war, become the
subjects of an usurping military des-
pot. What but this compact? What
but the specific part of it, can save us
from ruin? The judicial power; that
fortress of the constitution, is now to
be overturned. Yes, with honest
Ajax I would not only throw a shield
before it, I would build around it a
wall of brass. But I am too weak to
defend the rampart against the host of
assailants. I must call to my assis-
tance, their good sense, their patriot-
ism, and their virtue. Do not, gen-
tlemen, suffer the rage of passion to
drive reason, from her seat. If this
law be indeed bad, let us join to reme-
dy the defects. Has it been passed in
a manner which wounded your pride,
or roused your resentment? Have, I
conjure you, the magnanimity to par-
don that offence. I entreat, I em-
plore you, to sacrifice those angry pas-
sions to the interests of our country.
Pour out this price of opinion on the
alter of patriotism. Let it be an ex-
piatory libation for the weal of Ame-
rica. Do not, for God's sake, do not
suffer that pride to plunge us all into
the abyss of ruin. Indeed, indeed, it
will be but little, very little avail,
whether one opinion or the other be
right or wrong - it will heal no
wound, it will pay no debts, it will
rebuild no ravaged towns- Do not rely
on that popular will, which has brought
us frail beings into political existence?
That opinion is but a changable
thing. It will soon change. This
very measure will change it. You
will be deceived. Do not I beseech
you, in reliance on a foundation so
frail, commit the dignity, the harmo-
ny the existence of our nation to the
wild wind. Trust not your treasure
to the waves. Throw not your com-
pass and your charts into the ocean.
Do not believe that its billows will
waft you into port. Indeed, indeed,
you will be deceived. Oh, case not a-
way this only anchor of our safety. I
have seen its progress. I know the
difficulties through which it was ob-
tained. I stand in the presence of
Almity God, and of the world. I
declare to you, that if you lose this
charter, never! no never! will you
get another. We are now perhaps
arrived at the parting point. Here,
even here, we stand on the brink of
fate. Pause - Pause - For heaven's
sake pause!

Copy of the Convention between Lord
Hawkesbury & Mr. King, Jan. 8,
1802.

Difficulties having arise in the ex-
ecution of the 6th article of the treaty
of amity, commerce, and navigation
concluded at London, on the 14th of
November, 1794, between his Britan-
nic majesty and the United States of
America, and inconsequence thereof,
the proceedings of the commissioners
under the 7th article of the same trea-
ty having been suspended the parties
to the said treaty being equally desir-
our as far as may be, to obviate such
difficulties, have respectively named
Plenipotentiaries to treat and agree,
respecting the same: that is to say, his
Britannic majesty, has named for his
Plenipotentiary, the right honorable
Robert Banks Jenkinson, commonly
called Lord Hawkesbury, one of his
majesty's most honorable privy coun-
cil, and his principal secretary of state
for foreign affairs; and the President