able professional gentlemen of Philadelphia, sent a memorial to Congress, in which they disclaimed all interference of a political nature, but begged leave to state facts, within their own experience. Among other things they said: "That under the former law, the greatest inconveniences "were experienced by the court, the bar, and the suitors. "That the judges were constantly engaged in traversing "the states, with little opportunity for reflection or repose. Judges presided in states, the laws, usages, and prac"tices of which, were essentially different from those in "which they were educated; and without adverting to "the casualties of indisposition, and weather, the inevitable consequences of the late system were embarrassment, "uncertainty and delay." These gentlemen then go on to pronounce the highest eulogium on the new judges in their own circuit; the increased confidence in this tribunal, &c., "promises to render the court an honor, and a benefit to the "nation." They conclude by declaring, that "the aboli"tion of the court will probably be attended with great "public inconvenience." This memorial was signed by thirty-seven persons, the first in age and eminence; and among others by Joseph B. M'Kean, and A. J. Dallas, well known as two devoted friends of Mr. Jefferson.

In the debate on this bill, the two great champions were James A. Bayard, and William B. Giles. The former maintained with eminent ability, that Congress had not the power to deprive the judges of their stations by the indirect course of repealing the law under which they were appointed. But, the day of Jeffersonian dominion had come. The question of constitutionality, and of expediency, was insignificant when opposed to the President's pleasure. The courts were abolished, and Mr. Jefferson had the gratification of signing a law, which expelled the federal judges from their "strong hold," and of seeing them all reduced to the rank of private citizens. The real evil in this matter

is, that an example was thus given of the facility with which the judiciary may be subjected to the will of a party; this was in perfect accordance with Mr. Jefferson's notions of propriety. Some praise is due to Mr. Jefferson, for not having demolished the Supreme Court, as well as the Circuit Courts, that he might have routed Chief Justice Marshall, as to whom his volumes contain no equivocal opinion. This he might have done as legally as that which was done.

It cannot be too often brought to view, that the excellence of our government, in comparison with any ever before known, is, that while popular and elective, it has a power, intended to control other branches when they transcend their powers. Demolish this branch, and the union of the two others would make a more terrible despotism, than any one man can exercise, because it would be despotism with all the force of law. We have already seen a near approach to this, as we shall have occasion to notice, in considering the embargo laws. It is true that the sovereign people may arrest such a combination by the right of election. But such combination arises from perversion of public opinion, and holds its supremacy, by relying on that perversion. In such case, the slow, though sure process of the judiciary, is the only remedy. Is it not surprising, that a vigilant and jealous community should not so understand the meaning of its own deliberately adopted constitution? Ought we not rather to wonder, that our nation has preserved its republican forms so long, when such a man as Mr. Jefferson, construing the constitution as he did, was so long the popular idol? The power of party is fearfully illustrated by the fact, that there are so many men in this country, and in high stations too, who cannot be ignorant of the destructive tendency of Mr. Jefferson's doctrines, who nevertheless quote them as authorities.

Mr. Jefferson may not have intended to abolish the Supreme Court; he does not appear to have attempted it. It is not known, from his volumes, that he took any part in the

effort to remove the judges of that court. In the menorable trial, presently to be mentioned, it is not apparent, from anything published, that he therein interested himself, excepting that he somewhere remarks," the farce of impeach"ment will not be tried again." But as Judge Chase was impeached for his conduct in trying a citizen for the breach of a law, of which Mr. Jefferson had recommended a repeal; and for his conduct in trying James Thompson Callender, (that man of science whom Mr. Jefferson befriended,) for the breach of a law which Mr. Jefferson adjudged to be unconstitutional and void, it is probable, that the prosecution of Judge Chase had, at least, his entire approbation. If this magistrate could have been sacrificed, there would have been little difficulty in removing other obnoxious judges. Their seats would have been filled by men who would have had an eye to executive pleasure, however they might have seemed to the people. This would have been better suited to Mr. Jefferson's purpose, than an abolition of the court, which he cannot be supposed to have desired.

The trial of Judge Chase is one of the most remarkable events in the history of our country, whether considered in relation to the accused, to the character of the accusation, the members of the court before which the trial was had, or the motives and labors of those who conducted the defence: Remarkable, indeed, that the person who presided at the trial (Burr) was then under indictment for murder, and was, two years afterwards, prosecuted by Mr. Jefferson, and arraigned and tried on the charge of treason: but not remarkable, that Mr. Jefferson hoped to make out a sufficient cause for impeaching the presiding judge, at the latter trial.

SAMUEL CHASE was born in Maryland. He was at the head of the patriot party in that state, during the revolutionary days. He was a signer of the declaration of independence. But, he was a federalist. At the time of the trial on impeachment before the Senate, he was nearly sixty-four

years old, and much impaired in bodily strength. In his full vigor, he was a man of herculean frame, and vigorous mind; a learned and honest man no doubt, but not of courteous manners, on the bench.

In preparation for the expected hostilities with France, in Mr. Adams's time, a law passed in July, 1798, for a valuation of houses, lands, and slaves; and in the same month, another act was passed, for assessing a direct tax, in conformity to such valuation. In February and March following, an insurrection occurred in the western part of Pennsylvania, to resist the execution of these laws. Among the insurgents was John Fries. This man was tried before Judge Patterson, in April following, at Philadelphia. The fact of resisting the execution of the law was clearly proved. The defence was: 66 to resist by force of arms a particular "law of the United States, does not amount to 'levying war' against the United States, within the true meaning of the "constitution, and, therefore, is not treason, but a riot only." Judge Patterson, and Judge Peters, (district Judge,) held such resistance to be treason. A new trial was had, not on account of erroneous opinion on the law; but because a juror had expressed, before he was sworn on the trial, an opinion unfavorable to the accused. In April, 1800, Fries was again tried. Before the trial, Judge Chase put his opinion of the law in writing; which was in conformity with that of Judge Patterson. This opinion he caused to be copied, one copy for the counsel of Fries, one for the attorney for the United States, and one was intended to be given to the jury when they retired, and to be carried out by them, and used in their deliberations in finding a verdict.

When Fries was brought in for trial, and before the jury were sworn, the judge informed his counsel that he had put this opinion in writing, to show what the meaning of "levying war" according to the constitution, was understood by the court to be. Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Dallas, counsel for

Fries, notwithstanding Judge Chase informed them, that they would be permitted to offer arguments to the court, to show them that they were mistaken in the law, said, that they did not any longer consider themselves as counsel for the prisoner. The prisoner was asked whether the court should appoint other counsel; and he declined having any. The trial proceeded without counsel, Fries having challenged thirty-four jurors. He was convicted, and sentenced, and afterwards pardoned by President Adams. This transaction was one ground of impeachment.

The trial of J. T. Callender occurred in the month of May, (1800,) at Richmond. The ground of impeachment, in this case, was the alleged illegal, and oppressive conduct of the judge. The charges against Callender were for expressions in his "Prospect before Us," concerning John Adams, some of which have been noticed in a former page. A minute examination would require more space than this subject is now worth. The impeachment was drawn up, in relation to this trial, with extreme particularity, and with all the bitterness of malignant party spirit.

LETTER XLII.

JULY 10, 1833.

IN January, 1804, John Randolph, jr. moved the impeachment against Judge Chase, which was carried about two to one; but it was not prosecuted until the following session, in November. On the 2d of January, 1805, Judge Chase appeared before the Senate, and the 4th of February was assigned for his trial. The Senate Chamber was fitted up

* See page 131.