Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856, Vol. 2 (of 16)

by United States. Congress

Friday, January 8.

Judiciary System.

Agreeably to the order of the day, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the motion made on the 6th instant, to wit:

"That the act of Congress passed on the 13th day of February, 1801, entitled 'An act to provide for the more convenient organization of the Courts of the United States,' ought to be repealed."[64]

Mr. Breckenridge then rose and addressed the President, as follows:

It will be expected of me, I presume, sir, as I introduced the resolution now under consideration, to assign my reasons for wishing a repeal of this law. This I shall do; and shall endeavor to show:

1. That the law is unnecessary and improper, and was so at its passage; and

2. That the courts and judges created by it, can and ought to be abolished.

1st. That the act under consideration was unnecessary and improper, is, to my mind, no difficult task to prove. No increase of courts or judges could be necessary or justifiable, unless the existing courts and judges were incompetent to the prompt and proper discharge of the duties consigned to them. To hold out a show of litigation, when in fact little exists, must be impolitic; and to multiply expensive systems, and create hosts of expensive officers, without having experienced an actual necessity for them, must be a wanton waste of the public treasure.

The document before us shows that, at the passage of this act, the existing courts, not only from their number, but from the suits depending before them, were fully competent to a speedy decision of those suits. It shows, that on the 15th day of June last, there were depending in all the circuit courts, (that of Maryland only excepted, whose docket we have not been furnished with,) one thousand five hundred and thirty-nine suits. It shows that eight thousand two hundred and seventy-six suits of every description have come before those courts, in ten years and upwards. From this it appears, that the annual average amount of suits has been about eight hundred.

But sundry contingent things have conspired to swell the circuit court dockets. In Maryland, Virginia, and in all the Southern and South-western States, a great number of suits have been brought by British creditors; this species of controversy is nearly at an end.

In Pennsylvania, the docket has been swelled by prosecutions in consequence of the Western insurrection, by the disturbances in Bucks and Northampton Counties: and by the sedition act. These I find amount in that State to two hundred and forty suits.

In Kentucky, non-resident land claimants have gone into the federal court from a temporary convenience: because, until within a year or two past, there existed no court of general jurisdiction co-extensive with the whole State. I find, too, that of the six hundred and odd suits which have been commenced there, one hundred and ninety-six of them have been prosecutions under the laws of the United States.

In most of the States there have been prosecutions under the sedition act. This source of litigation is, I trust, for ever dried up. And, lastly, in all the States a number of suits have arisen under the excise law; which source of controversy will, I hope, before this session terminates, be also dried up.

But this same document discloses another important fact; which is, that notwithstanding all these untoward and temporary sources of federal adjudication, the suits in those courts are decreasing; for, from the dockets exhibited (except Kentucky and Tennessee, whose suits are summed up in the aggregate) it appears, that in 1799 there were one thousand two hundred and seventy-four, and in 1800 there were six hundred and eighty-seven suits commenced; showing a decrease of five hundred and eighty-seven suits.

Could it be necessary then to increase courts when suits were decreasing? Could it be necessary to multiply judges, when their duties were diminishing? And will I not be justified, therefore, in affirming, that the law was unnecessary, and that Congress acted under a mistaken impression, when they multiplied courts and judges at a time when litigation was actually decreasing?

But, sir, the decrease of business goes a small way in fixing my opinion on this subject. I am inclined to think, that so far from there having been a necessity at this time for an increase of courts and judges, that the time never will arrive when America will stand in need of thirty-eight federal judges. Look, sir, at your constitution, and see the judicial power there consigned to federal courts, and seriously ask yourself can there be fairly extracted from those powers subjects of litigation sufficient for six supreme and thirty-two inferior court judges? To me it appears impossible.

The judicial powers given to the federal courts were never intended by the constitution to embrace, exclusively, subjects of litigation, which could, with propriety, be left with the State courts. Their jurisdiction was intended principally to extend to great national and foreign concerns. Except cases arising under the laws of the United States, I do not at present recollect but three or four kinds in which their power extends to subjects of litigation, in which private persons only are concerned. And can it be possible, that with a jurisdiction embracing so small a portion of private litigation, in a great part of which the State courts might, and ought to participate, that we can stand in need of thirty-eight judges, and expend in judiciary regulations the annual sum of $137,000?

No other country, whose regulations I have any knowledge of, furnishes an example of a system so prodigal and extensive. In England, whose courts are the boast, and said to be the security of the rights of the nation, every man knows there are but twelve judges and three principal courts. These courts embrace, in their original or appellate jurisdiction, almost the whole circle of human concerns.

The King's Bench and Common Pleas, which consist of four judges each, entertain all the common law suits of 40s. and upwards, originating among nine millions of the most commercial people in the world. They moreover revise the proceedings of not only all the petty courts of record in the kingdom, even down to the courts of piepoudre, but also of the Court of King's Bench in Ireland; and these supreme courts, after centuries of experiment, are found to be fully competent to all the business of the kingdom.

I will now inquire into the power of Congress to put down these additional courts and judges.

First, as to the courts, Congress are empowered by the constitution "from time to time, to ordain and establish inferior courts." The act now under consideration, is a legislative construction of this clause in the constitution, that Congress may abolish as well as create these judicial officers; because it does expressly, in the twenty-seventh section of the act, abolish the then existing inferior courts, for the purpose of making way for the present. This construction, I contend, is correct; but it is equally pertinent to my object, whether it be or be not. If it be correct, then the present inferior courts may be abolished as constitutionally as the last; if it be not, then the law for abolishing the former courts, and, establishing the present, was unconstitutional, and consequently repealable.

But independent of this legislative construction, on which I do not found my opinion, nor mean to rely my argument, there is little doubt indeed, in my mind, as to the power of Congress on this law. The first section of the third article vests the judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. By this clause Congress may, from time to time, establish inferior courts; but it is clearly a discretionary power, and they may not establish them. The language of the constitution is very different when regulations are not left discretional. For example, "The trial," says the constitution, "of all crimes '(except in cases of impeachment) shall be by jury: representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned according to numbers. All revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives,'" &c. It would, therefore, in my opinion, be a perversion, not only of language, but of intellect, to say, that although Congress may, from time to time, establish inferior courts, yet, when established, that they shall not be abolished by a subsequent Congress possessing equal powers. It would be a paradox in legislation.

2d. As to the judges. The Judiciary Department is so constructed as to be sufficiently secured against the improper influence of either the Executive or Legislative Departments. The courts were organized and established by the Legislature, and the Executive creates the judges. Being thus organized, the constitution affords the proper checks to secure their honesty and independence in office. It declares they shall not be removed from office during good behavior; nor their salaries diminished during their continuance in office. From this it results, that a judge, after his appointment, is totally out of the power of the President, and his salary secured against legislative diminution, during his continuance in office. The first of these checks, which protects a judge in his office during good behavior, applies to the President only, who would otherwise have possessed the power of removing him, like all other officers, at pleasure; and the other check, forbidding a diminution of their salaries, applies to the Legislature only. They are two separate and distinct checks, furnished by the constitution against two distinct departments of the Government; and they are the only ones which are or ought to have been furnished on the subject.

But because the constitution declares that a judge shall hold his office during good behavior, can it be tortured to mean, that he shall hold his office after it is abolished? Can it mean, that his tenure should be limited by behaving well in an office which did not exist? Can it mean that an office may exist, although its duties are extinct? Can it mean, in short, that the shadow, to wit, the judge, can remain, when the substance, to wit, the office, is removed? It must have intended all these absurdities, or it must admit a construction which will avoid them.

The construction obviously is, that a judge should hold an existing office, so long as he did his duty in that office; and not that he should hold an office that did not exist, and perform duties not provided by law. Had the construction which I contend against been contemplated by those who framed the constitution, it would have been necessary to have declared, explicitly, that the judges should hold their offices and their salaries during good behavior.

Let me not be told, sir, that the salaries in the present case are inconsiderable, and ought not to be withheld; and that the doctrine is not a dangerous one. I answer, it is the principle I contend against; and if it is heterodox for one dollar, it is equally so for a million. But I contend the principle, if once admitted, may be extended to destructive lengths. Suppose it should hereafter happen, that those in power should combine to provide handsomely for their friends, could any way so plain, easy, and effectual, present itself, as by creating courts, and filling them with those friends? Might not sixty as well as sixteen, with salaries of twenty thousand, instead of two thousand dollars, be provided for in this way?

There is another difficulty under this construction still to encounter, and which also grows out of the constitution: By the constitution, a new State may be formed by the junction of two or more States, with their assent and that of Congress. If this doctrine, once a judge and always a judge, be correct, what would you do in such an event, with the district judges of the States who formed that junction? Both would be unnecessary, and you would have, in a single State, two judges of equal and concurrent jurisdiction; or one a real judge, with an office, and another a quasi judge, without an office. The States also forming such junction, would be equally embarrassed with their State judges; for the same construction would be equally applicable to them.

Upon this construction, also, an infallibility is predicated, which it would be arrogance in any human institution to assume, and which goes to cut up legislation by the roots. We would be debarred from that which is indulged to us from a higher source, and on subjects of higher concern than legislation; I mean a retraction from and correction of our errors. On all other subjects of legislation we are allowed, it seems, to change our minds, except on judiciary subjects, which, of all others, are the most complex and difficult. I appeal to our own statute book to prove this difficulty: for in ten years Congress have passed no less than twenty-six laws on this subject.

Mr. J. Mason, of Massachusetts, said, it would be agreed on all hands that this was one of the most important questions that ever came before a Legislature. Were he not of this opinion he would not have risen to offer his sentiments. But he felt so deep an interest in the question, and from the respect which he entertained for the district of country he represented, he deemed it his duty to meet the subject, and not be satisfied with giving to it his silent negative.

The constitution, in the construction of the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary Departments, had assigned to each a different tenure. The President was chosen for four years; the Senate for six years, subject to a prescribed rotation biennially; the House of Representatives for two years; and the Judiciary during good behavior. It says to the President, at the expiration of every four years, you shall revert to the character of a private citizen, however splendid your talents or conspicuous your virtue. Why? Because you have assigned to you powers which it is dangerous to exercise. You have the power of creating offices and officers. You have prerogatives. The temptation to an abuse of your power is great. Such has been the uniform experience of ages. The constitution holds the same language to the Senate and House of Representatives: It says, it is necessary for the good of society that you also should revert at short periods to the mass of the people, because to you are consigned the most important duties of Government, and because you hold the purse-strings of the nation.

To the Judiciary: What is the language applied to them? The judges are not appointed for two, four, or any given number of years; but they hold their appointments for life, unless they misbehave themselves. Why? For this reason: They are not the depositaries of the high prerogatives of Government. They neither appoint to office, nor hold the purse-strings of the country, nor legislate for it. They depend entirely upon their talents, which is all they have to recommend them. They cannot, therefore, be disposed to pervert their power to improper purposes. What are their duties? To expound and apply the laws. To do this with fidelity and skill, requires a length of time. The requisite knowledge is not to be procured in a day. These are the plain and strong reasons which must strike every mind, for the different tenure by which the judges hold their offices, and they are such as will eternally endure wherever liberty exists.

On examination, it will be found that the people, in forming their constitution, meant to make the judges as independent of the Legislature as of the Executive. Because the duties which they have to perform, call upon them to expound not only the laws, but the constitution also; in which is involved the power of checking the Legislature in case it should pass any laws in violation of the constitution. For this reason it was more important that the judges in this country should be placed beyond the control of the Legislature, than in other countries where no such power attaches to them.

The constitution says: "The Judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. 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."

Thus it says, "the judges shall hold their offices during good behavior." How can this direction of the constitution be complied with, if the Legislature shall, from session to session, repeal the law under which the office is held, and remove the office? He did not conceive that any words, which human ingenuity could devise, could more completely get over the remarks that had been made by the gentleman from Kentucky. But that gentleman says, that this provision of the constitution applies exclusively to the President. He considers it as made to supersede the powers of the President to remove the judges. But could this have been the contemplation of the framers of the constitution, when even the right of the President to remove officers at pleasure, was a matter of great doubt, and had divided in opinion our most enlightened citizens. Not that he stated this circumstance because he had doubts. He thought the President ought to have the right; but it did not emanate from the constitution; was not expressly found in the constitution, but sprang from Legislative construction.

Besides, if Congress have the right to repeal the whole of the law, they must possess the right to repeal a section of it. If so, they may repeal the law so far as it applies to a particular district, and thus get rid of an obnoxious judge. They may remove his office from him. Would it not be absurd still to say, that the removed judge held his office during good behavior?

The constitution says: "The judges shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." Why this provision? Why guard against the power to deprive the judges of their pay in a diminution of it, and not provide against what was more important, their existence?

Still, if the gentlemen would not agree with him as to the unconstitutionality of the measure proposed, he would ask, was it expedient? Were there not great doubts existing throughout the United States? Ought not each gentleman to say, though I may have no doubts or hesitancy, are not a large portion of our citizens of opinion that it would violate the constitution? If this diversity of sentiment exists, ought not the evils under the judiciary law to be very great before we touch it? Ought we not to aim at harmonizing, instead of dividing our citizens? Was not the constitution a sacred instrument; an instrument ever to be approached with reverence; an instrument which ought not lightly to be drawn from its hallowed retreat, and subjected to the flux and reflux of passion? But where is the evil complained of? This system was established only last session; scarcely had it been yet originated; scarcely had we tried it on its very threshold; where then the necessity of being so pointed, as to destroy a system scarcely formed three days ago? Does not this manifest precipitation? Will it not manifest more magnanimity, more rationality, to abide by it until we try it; instead of taking up a pen and dashing it out of existence?

Mr. Morris, of New York.—Mr. President, I am so very unfortunate, that the arguments in favor of the motion have confirmed my opinion that the law to which it refers ought not to be repealed. The honorable mover has rested his proposition on two grounds:

1st. That the judiciary law passed last session is unnecessary; and,

2dly. That we have a right to repeal it, and ought to exercise that right.

Gentlemen say, recur to the ancient system. What is the ancient system? Six judges of the Supreme Court to ride the circuit of America twice a year, and sit twice a year at the seat of Government. Without inquiring into the accuracy of a statement made by the gentleman respecting the courts of England, in which, I apprehend, he will find himself deceived, let me ask what would be the effects of the old system here? Cast an eye over the extent of our country, and a moment's consideration will show that the First Magistrate, in selecting a character for the bench, must seek less the learning of a judge than the agility of a post-boy. Can it be possible that men advanced in years, (for such alone can have the maturity of judgment fitting for the office;) that men educated in the closet—men who, from their habits of life, must have more strength of mind than of body; is it, I say, possible that such men can be running from one end of the continent to the other? Or, if they could, can they find time to hear and decide causes? I have been told by men of eminence on the bench, that they could not hold their offices under the old arrangement.

What is the present system? You have added to the old judges seven district and sixteen circuit judges. What will be the effect of the desired repeal? Will it not be a declaration to the remaining judges that they hold their offices subject to your will and pleasure? And what will be the result of this? It will be, that the check established by the constitution, wished for by the people, and necessary in every contemplation of common sense, is destroyed. It had been said, and truly, too, that Governments are made to provide against the follies and vices of men. For to suppose that Governments rest upon reason is a pitiful solecism. If mankind were reasonable, they would want no Government. Hence, checks are required in the distribution of the power among those who are to exercise it for the benefit of the people. Did the people of America vest all power in the Legislature? No; they had vested in the judges a check intended to be efficient—a check of the first necessity, to prevent an invasion of the constitution by unconstitutional laws—a check which might prevent any faction from intimidating or annihilating the tribunals themselves.

On this ground, said Mr. Morris, I stand to arrest the victory meditated over the constitution of my country; a victory meditated by those who wish to prostrate that constitution for the furtherance of their own ambitious views. Not of him who had recommended this measure, nor of those who now urge it; for, on his uprightness and their uprightness, I have the fullest reliance; but of those in the background who have further and higher objects. These troops that protect the outworks are to be first dismissed. Those posts which present the strongest barriers are first to be taken, and then the constitution becomes an easy prey.

Let us then, secondly, consider whether we have constitutionally a power to repeal this law. [Here Mr. Morris quoted the third article and first section of the constitution.] I have heard a verbal criticism about the words shall and may, which appeared the more unnecessary to me, as the same word, shall, is applied to both members of the section. For it says: "the judicial power, &c. shall be vested in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish." The Legislature, therefore, had, without doubt, the right of determining, in the first instance, what inferior courts should be established; but when established, the words are imperative, a part of the judicial power shall vest in them. And "the judges shall hold their offices during good behavior." They shall receive a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Therefore, whether the remarks be applied to the tenure of office, or the quantum of compensation, the constitution is equally imperative. After this exposition, gentlemen are welcome to any advantage to be derived from the criticism on shall and may.