As no member, who has taken part in debate, was a member of this body when the law passed, I will say something of its history. I am not disposed to excite the sensibility of gentlemen, by any remarks which I shall make, or to call up unpleasant recollections of past scenes. But when I hear it said that this law was passed with calmness, after mature reflection, and that we are now, in a fit of passion, going to undo what was thus wisely done, I think it necessary that the public should have a correct statement.
It is true, that under the last Administration, when there existed (what I trust will never, in an equal degree, exist again,) an immoderate thirst for Executive patronage, a proposition was made to establish a new judiciary system; a system worse than the present; as it proposed, according to my recollection, thirty-eight judges instead of sixteen. This law was very near passing. It was, however, rejected in the House of Representatives by a very small majority. But it was circulated as a project of a law among the people. It was illy received. It was thought too rank a thing, and met with general disapprobation throughout the United States, so far as I have been able to learn. After this reception, it was softened down to the plan introduced at the last session. What temper accompanied the progress of the bill in the other House I know not, or, if I did know, would it be proper for me here to say? But with respect to the acts of this body, I am not of opinion they added any dignity to our common course of procedure. The bill was referred to a committee, who, although it was very long, reported it without any amendment. Various amendments were offered, some of which were admitted to be proper. But they were not received. One, indeed, proposed by a member from Connecticut, who was chairman of the committee, and was then hostile to the plan, did pass in the early stages of the bill, but on the third reading it was expunged. All amendments proposed by the minority were uniformly rejected by a steady, inflexible, and undeviating majority. I confess that I saw no passion, but I certainly did see great pertinacity; something like what the gentleman from Connecticut had termed a holding fast. No amendments were admitted; when offered, we were told, no; you may get them introduced by a rider or supplementary bill, or in any way you please; but down this bill must go; it must be crammed down your throats. This was not the precise phrase, but such was the amount of what was said.
I will say that not an argument was urged in favor of the bill, not a word to show the necessity or propriety of the change. Yet we are told that there was great dignity, great solemnity in its progress and passage!
But there is something undignified in thus hastily repealing this law! in thus yielding ourselves to the fluctuations of public opinion! So we are told!—But if there be blame, on whom does it fall? Not on us, who respected the public opinion when this law was passed, and who still respect it; but on those who, in defiance of public opinion, passed this law, after that public opinion had been decisively expressed. The revolution in public opinion had taken place before the introduction of this project; the people of the United States had determined to commit their affairs to new agents; already had the confidence of the people been transferred from their then rulers into other hands. After this exposition of the national will, and this new deposit of the national confidence, the gentlemen should have left untouched this important and delicate subject—a subject on which the people could not be reconciled to their views, even in the flood-tide of their power and influence; they should have forborne, till agents, better acquainted with the national will, because more recently constituted its organs, had come into the Government. This would have been more dignified than to seize the critical moment when power was passing from them, to pass such a law as this. If there is error, it is our duty to correct it; and the truth was, no law was ever more execrated by the public.
Let it not be said, postpone the repeal till the next session. No—let us restore those gentlemen to private life, who have accepted appointments under this law. This will be doing them greater justice, than by keeping them in office another year, till the professional business, which once attached to them, is gone into other channels.
Mr. Stone, of North Carolina.—Before entering into an examination of the expediency of the repeal, it may be proper to remark, that gentlemen who have spoken against the repeal, whose talents and eloquence I highly admire, have not correctly stated the question. The true question is, not whether we shall deprive the people of the United States of all their courts of justice, but whether we shall restore to them their former courts. Shall we, or shall we not, continue an experiment made, or attempted to be made, I will not say improperly, because my respect for this body and for my country, forbid the imputation; but I will say that the length of time we remained without this system, and the repeated ineffectual attempts made to establish it, present strong reasons for inferring that there are not those great apparent reasons in favor of it, that have been stated. A system somewhat similar to the present had been rejected by the Legislature, because they preferred the former system. Another evidence to the same purport is, that during the last session, when the subject was again revived, and the present plan adopted, an amendment was offered, to amend by extending and enlarging the former establishment.
[Here Mr. S. read the amendment proposed, which augmented the number of judges of the Supreme Court, and assigned their circuits.]
This amendment was rejected, and from the vote entered on the journal of that day, it appears that the difference of votes against the amendment was formed of those gentlemen who were nominated to appointments made vacant by the promotions under the new law. I do not state this circumstance as an evidence that these gentlemen were influenced by improper motives; but to show that the manner in which the new system was formed, was not calculated to establish, in the public mind, a decided preference of it over the old system. Having made these remarks on the great deliberation said to have been manifested in the adoption of this plan, I hope I may be permitted to express my perfect coincidence with the gentleman from Connecticut, that courts are necessary for the administration of justice, and that, without them, our laws would be a dead letter.
But it appears to me essential to the due administration of justice, that those who preside in our courts should be well acquainted with the laws which are to guide their decisions. And, I apprehend, that no way is so much calculated to impart this knowledge, as a practical acquaintance with them, by attending courts in the several States, and hearing gentlemen who are particularly acquainted with them, explain and discuss them. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary, in my mind, that the Judges of the Supreme Court, whose power controls all the other tribunals, and on whose decisions rest the property, the reputation, the liberty, and the lives of our citizens, should, by riding the circuit, render themselves practically acquainted with their duties. It is well known, that the knowledge of the laws of a State, is not to be suddenly acquired, and it is reasonable to conclude, that that knowledge is most correctly possessed by men whose whole lives have been devoted to the acquisition. It is also perfectly well known, that the knowledge of the modes and principles of practice in the different States, or of any State, is most effectually to be acquired in courts, where gentlemen of skill and experience apply those principles to use upon existing points.
This defect, then, of the present plan, is, in my opinion, so radical, that, of itself, it would decide, with me, the question of expediency.