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

by United States. Congress

On other topics, the Algerine depredations, Indian war, &c., it might as easily be shown that the representation had been equally unfair. He should not dwell upon them, because they were less calculated to make the unfavorable impression on the public mind, which had been attempted on the subject of the debt. He would dismiss them with a single remark: the uses to which these incidents were applied, and not the events themselves, formed the subject of his colleague's animadversions.

But to the long catalogue of unpopular acts which have deprived their authors of the public confidence, the gentleman tells us, he and his friends were "goaded" by the clamor of their opponents. He solemnly assures us, that in the adoption of those measures they clearly foresaw the downfall of their power; but impressed with a conviction that they were essential to the public good, and disdaining all considerations of a personal nature, they nobly sacrificed their political existence on the altar of the general welfare; and we are called upon now to revere in them the self-immolated victims at the shrine of patriotism. These are, indeed, lofty pretensions; and although I shall not peremptorily deny, in this age of infidelity, I may be permitted to doubt them; for I call upon this committee to decide whether, in this day's discussion, the gentleman has evinced that purity of heart, or that elevation of sentiment, which could justify me in clothing him with the attributes of Curtius or of the Decii?

I wish especially to know, whether the common law of libels which attaches to this constitution, be the doctrine laid down by Lord Mansfield, or that which has immortalized Mr. Fox? And whether the jurisdiction thus usurped over the press, in defiance of an express amendatory clause, which must be construed to annul every previous provision, if any such there be, which comes within its purview, be an example adduced to illustrate the position, which I certainly shall never contest, that "what the constitution does not permit to be done by direct means, cannot, constitutionally, be indirectly effected?" But to reconcile us to this usurpation, we are informed, that the principles of the common law are favorable only to liberty; that they neither have been, nor can be enlisted in the cause of persecution. If I did not misunderstand the gentleman, he said that no prosecution had occurred under that law. He has therefore never heard of the case of Luther Baldwin. I speak of the New Jersey case; nor that of Williams. Other instances, I learn from high authority, have taken place in Vermont.

Mr. R. said he was unhackneyed in the ways of majorities; his experience had been very limited; but was he to conclude, from these observations, that it was the common law, the uniform usage heretofore of this Government, for this House to be the mere instrument for effecting the Executive will, a Chamber for enregistering Presidential edicts? It is said, that the document on this subject was one which the Executive had no right to lay before the House. When did the right of the President to recommend modifications of the Judiciary system cease? Such recommendations had heretofore formed a prominent feature in two successive Executive communications made at the commencement of two successive sessions of Congress. Did the right of the Executive to recommend, and of Congress to act, cease at the precise period when the faultless model of the last session was perfected? Mr. R. said, that the gentleman from Delaware had taken such a range, and thrown out such a vast deal of matter, that, in attempting to reply to some of his observations, he was necessarily led into many desultory remarks. The present system, it seems, was necessary, from the inevitable corporeal infirmity of the judges: the unavoidable effect of the tedious probation indispensable to that venerable station.

Let us compare the former practice with the present theory. The judge of one of the two districts into which Virginia had been divided, was contemporary with him at school. He is certainly neither an infirm nor hoary sage. His associate from Maryland had been an active and gallant partisan at the siege of Pensacola, during our Revolutionary war: not contending, however, under those banners where you would have expected to find a man who occupies so dignified a station under the Government of the United States; but fighting the battles of his King. Bravely, yet, alas! unsuccessfully contending against the spirit of insubordination and jacobinism which threatens to sweep from the earth every thing valuable to man, against which the gentleman from Delaware is also eager to enter the lists. The selections which have been made from either House of Congress seem to have had as little reference to age and experience, which are said to be indispensable to the Judicial character. Upon a subject connected with those appointments, we have been told that the Executive had a right to presume a vacancy in all cases where a judge of an inferior tribunal had been appointed to a seat on the bench of a superior court; and that the new office vests, not at the time when the judge is notified of his promotion, nor at the date of his acceptance, but from the date of his commission. Mr. R. said, that he certainly did not mean to contend with the gentleman from Delaware on points of law, yet he would put a question to that gentleman. It will readily be conceded, that the vacating of the former office is the condition of the acceptance of the latter. Suppose a judge, after the date of his new commission, but prior to his notification or acceptance thereof, perform a Judicial act, was that act, therefore, invalid? Could his successor, on the receipt of his commission, exercise the functions of judge, prior to the resignation of the former incumbent? Could any office be at the same time in the possession of two persons? Did not this doctrine imply a right on part of the Government to anticipate the resignation of any judge, to compel his assent to an act vacating his office? The new commission, under these circumstances, either did or did not give a claim to its possessor on the office. If it did not, the Executive had a right to withhold it. If it did, a judge may be expelled from office, without his consent, and provided, at any time afterwards he shall acquiesce, the expulsion is legal. Besides, by what authority does a member of this House hold his seat under an election previous to his appointment of district judge of North Carolina? For this office a commission was issued, as I am credibly informed. But, sir, we shall be told, that the manner in which this affair was transacted ought not to affect our decision. It is with me an irrefragable proof of the inexpediency of the law, and of course conclusive evidence of the expediency of its repeal.

But the constitution is said to forbid it. And here permit me to express my satisfaction, that gentlemen have agreed to construe the constitution by the rules of common sense. This mode is better adapted to the capacity of unprofessional men, and will preclude the gentleman from arrogating to himself, and half a dozen other characters in this committee, the sole right of expounding that instrument, as he had done in the case of the law which is proposed to be repealed. Indeed, as one of those who would be unwilling to devolve upon that gentleman the high priesthood of the constitution, and patiently submit to technical expositions which I might not even comprehend, I am peculiarly pleased that we are invited to exercise our understandings in the construction of this instrument. A precedent, said to be quite analogous, has been adduced—the decision of the judges of Virginia, on a similar question. A pamphlet, entitled "A Friend to the Constitution," has been quoted. Public opinion informs me that this is the production of the pen of a gentleman who holds a pre-eminent station on the Federal bench. Am I so to consider it? If this be understood, it is entitled to high respect; the facts, at least, must be unquestionable.

The courts of Virginia consisted of one general court of common law; a court of chancery, composed of three judges; and a court of admiralty. The judges of all those courts held their office during good behavior; and did, by law, constitute a court of appeals. The general court becoming manifestly incompetent to the extensive duties assigned to it, a system of circuit courts was adopted in 1787, and the judges of the court of appeals were appointed to ride the circuits. This law the judges pronounced unconstitutional, and agreed, unanimously, to remonstrate against it. After lamenting the necessity of deciding between the constitution and the law, and that, in a case personally interesting to themselves, they say, "on this view of the subject, the following alternatives presented themselves; either to decide the question, or resign their offices. The latter would have been their choice, if they could have considered those questions as affecting their individual interests only." Yes, sir, and such was the character of those men, that none doubted the sincerity of this declaration. They then go on to declare, that the Legislature have no right even to increase their duties, by a modification of the courts; a privilege for which no one here has contended. In respect, much more, it is believed, to the characters of those venerable men, than to this opinion, the Legislature did not enforce the new regulations. The law was new-modelled, a separate court of appeals established, the judges of which were to be elected by joint ballot, in conformity with the constitution. New members were added to the general court, and it was declared to be their duty to ride the circuits. The judges of chancery, of the general court, and court of admiralty, who had not been elected, in pursuance of the constitution, judges of appeals, but on whom that duty was imposed by law, were relieved from the further discharge of it. In this arrangement several of the judges were understood to have been consulted; and on the ballot the six senior judges were elected, five into the court of appeals, and the sixth in the court of chancery. Nevertheless, against this law the judges also protested, as an invasion of the Judiciary establishment, denying the right of the Legislature to deprive them of office in any other mode than is pointed out in the constitution, (impeachment;) but to make way for the present salutary system, they do, in their mere free will, resign their appointments as judges of the court of appeals, and as they do not hold any separate commission for that office, which might be returned, they do order the same to be recorded.

Now, sir, I shall not contend, as I certainly might, and with great reason, that the practice of Virginia must be considered as settling the constitutional doctrine of the State, the opinions of individuals, however enlightened and respectable, notwithstanding; under which practice two chancellors have been removed from their office of judges in chancery, as well as of appeals, and the judges of the general court and court of admiralty also divested of their seats on the bench of the court of appeals, although a court of appeals was supposed necessary, and was retained in the new system; nor shall I insist on the disparity between the stability of the Judicial branch of Government in the eye of the Constitution of Virginia, and that of the United States, respectively, as surely I might. For the constitution of Virginia has a retrospect to pre-existing Judicial establishments, which experience had tested, which were allowed to be beneficial, and which it is contended were sanctioned by it. That of the United States, formed when the Confederacy had no such establishments, is to be created, from time to time: in other words, to be modified, as experience shall point out their defects—this power being devolved on a body constituted by express unalterable provisions. No, sir, I shall not dilate upon these forcible topics; I will concede, for argument sake, that the doctrine contended for by the judges of Virginia, was the true constitutional doctrine, and will apply it to the bill on your table, having first applied it to the act on which it is intended to operate. Previous to the existence of that act, the duty of judge of the circuit court was performed by the judges of the Supreme Court, who constituted a court of appeals, and by the judges of the respective districts. These were judges of the circuit court to every intent and purpose, as completely as the judges of Virginia were judges of appeals. By the operation of the law of the last session, they have been divested of this office, and other persons have been appointed to it. Much stress is laid, much ingenuity exercised to make metaphysical distinctions between the court and the office. I will grant all that gentlemen contend for, that there is a wide distinction. Does it affect the case? Does it alter the fact? The late circuit courts were not only abolished—the persons holding the office of judge of those courts no longer hold it; they have neither been impeached, nor have they resigned. They have not even accepted any new appointment inconsistent with it, and by which it became vacant. The function of judge of the circuit court does or does not constitute an office. If it does, then the judges of the supreme and district courts have been deprived of their offices, (the discharge of whose duties, be it remembered, constitutes no small part of the consideration for which they receive their salaries.) If it does not, then the circuit judges are not now about to be deprived of their offices. On the passage of the law of last session, did we hear any protest against its unconstitutionality from the Supreme or district courts? Of any resignations of the office of judge of the circuit court, in order "that a salutary system might take effect?" And yet, sir, is not that office as distinct from that of Supreme or district judge, as the office of judge of appeals in Virginia is from that of judge of the general court, chancery, or admiralty? Are not the jurisdictions of those courts separate and distinct? Both never having original jurisdiction of the same subjects; and an appeal lying from the inferior to the superior tribunal, as in Virginia, although the officers of those tribunals may be the same individuals? What, then, is the difference between taking the office of appellate jurisdiction from the judge who possessed original jurisdiction, or taking the office of original jurisdiction from the appellate judge? How is the independence of the judge more affected by the one act than by the other?

To prove the unconstitutionality of this bill, then, by a recurrence to the doctrine of the judiciary of Virginia, is to prove the unconstitutionality of the law of which it will effect the repeal. And no argument has been, or, in my poor opinion, can be, adduced, to prove the unconstitutionality of the one, which will not equally apply to the other. No, sir, gentlemen are precluded by their own act from assuming the ground of the judges of Virginia; they are obliged to concede that we have the power, because they have already exercised it, of modifying the courts, and here they concede the question. They tell you that this, however, must, to be constitutional, be a "bona fide" modification. It becomes them to prove, then, that this is a mala fide modification.

Gentlemen have not, they cannot meet the distinction between removing the judges from office for the purpose of putting in another person, and abolishing an office because it is useless or oppressive. Suppose the collectors of your taxes held their offices by the tenure of good behavior, would the abolition of your taxes have been an infraction of that tenure? Or would you be bound to retain them, lest it should infringe a private right? If the repeal of the taxes would be an infringement of that tenure, and therefore unconstitutional, could you ring all the changes upon the several duties on stamps, carriages, stills, &c., and, because you had retained the man and any one of these offices without diminishing his emoluments, abolish the others? Would not this be to impair the tenure of the office which was abolished, or to which another officer might have been appointed by a new regulation? Have not the judges, in the same manner, been deprived of one of their offices? And is not the tenure as completely impaired thereby, as if the other had been taken away also? Although it will be granted that the tenant is not so much affected, since, with one office, he has the salary formerly attached to both.