United States oracle and Portsmouth advertiser — Portsmouth, N.H., 1802-02-13 00:00:00, page 1

We were told yesterday by the hors.
gentleman from Virginia, that our ob
jections were calculated for the bye
ftanders, and made with a view to pro
duce effect upon the people at large. —
I know not for whom this charge is
intended. I certainly recoiled no Inch
,observations. As I was personally
charged with making a play upon words,
it may have been intended tor me. But
surely, fir, it will be recollected, that I
declined that paltry game, and de
clared that I considered the verbal criti
cifm which had been relied on, irreye
lant. If I can recoiled wlwt I said,
from recolledmg well what I tho't, and
meant to fay, sure I am that I uttered
nothing in the Ryle of an appeal to the
people. I hope no member of this house
I has so poor a sense of its dignity, gs to
make such an appeal. As to myfelf,it
is now near thirty years since I was
called into public office. During that
'period I have frequently been the ser
vant of the people—always their friend
—but at no one moment of my life
their flatterer—and God sordid that I
ever should be. When the hon. gen
tleman confiders the course we have
taken, he must fee that the observation
he has thus pointed can light on no ob
ject. I trust that it did riot flow from
a confeioufnefs of his own intentions.
He, I hope, had no view of this fort.
If he had, he was much, very muph
mistaken. Had he looked round upbn
those who honour us with their attend
ance,he would have fecn that the splen
did Rallies of his wit excited no appro
/ batory smile. The countenances of
-'thofe by whom we were Surrounded,
prefepted a different fpedaclt. They
were improved with the dignity of this
house ; they perceived in it the dignity
of the American people, and felt with
high and manly fenriment their 'own
participation.
'We, have been told, fir, by the hon
orable gentleman from Virginia, that
there is no independent part .'f this
Government. That in popular gov
ernments, the form of every depart
ment, as well as the government itfelf,
foutt depend upon popular opinion.—
[And the honorable member from North
Carolina has informed us, that there is
I'd chet.k for the overbearing powers of
{be Legislature, but public opinion ;
ind hellos been pleased to notice a sen
timent 1 had altered. A sentiment
.which not only fell from my lips, but
„hich flowed from my heart. It has,
.however, been mtfunderftood and mil
applied. After reminding the house
of the dangers to which popular gov
ernments are eXpofed fretn the influ
ence of designing demagogues upon
popular patiion, I took the liberty to
fay, that we, w^ the Senate, of the U.
.States, ate assembled here to save the
people from their most daQrom ehemy,
to save them from themselves : to
guard them against the baneful effe&s
of their own precipitation,their passion,
their misguided ^eal. Sis for these
purposes that all our conflitutional
checks are devised. If this be not the
language of the Constitution, die Con
stitution is all nenfenfe. For, why are
the Senators chosen by communities;
and the Representatives diredly by the
, people ? Why is the one chosen for a
longer term than & btber? Why give
one branch of the Legislature a nega
tive upon the ads of the other ? Why
give the President a right to arrest the
proceedings of both till two thirds of
each should concur ?• Why all these
multiplied precautions, unless to check
and controul that iniquitous Spirit,that
headlong torrent of opinion, which has
%wept away every popular government
{bat ever exited <
SENATE of the UNTIED STATES,
AT WASHINGTON, JAN. 12, ifol
MR. MORRIS. Mr. President,
I had foftcred the hope that
lome gentleman who thinks with ine,
would have taken upon himfelf the talk
of replying to the observations made
yesterday and this morning, in favour
of the motion on your table. But
since no gentleman has gone so fully
into the fubje& as it seems to require,
I am. compelled to request your atten
tion.
kWXIJ.] SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1802.
Os ALL THE DISPOSITIONS AND HABITS WHICH LEAD to POLITICAL?
prosperity, RELIGION and MORALITY are indispensable >
supports. WASHINGTON'S Legacy. J
PORTSMOUTH, N.H. Printed and Fulfilled every
Bniteti ^tatts
Thegrand debate,
The popular harangue, the tart reply,
The logic, and the/wifa>m, and the wit.
AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE, TWENTY-SIXTH YEAR.
CONGRESS.
Portsmouth
In considering the expediency I hope
I shall be pardoned for asking your at
tention to some parts of the constitution
which have not yet been dwelt upon,
and which tend to elucidate this part of
our enquiry. I agree fully with the
gentleman that every fedion, every Sen
tence, and every word of the constitu
tion ought to be deliberately weighed
and examined ; nay, lam content to
go along with him, and give its due
value and importance tp every flop &
comma. In the begining we find a
declaration of the motives which indu
ced the American people to bind them
selves by this compact. And in the fore
ground ofthat declaration we find these
objects Specified ; Jo form a more per fra
union, to eflaldifh justice, and to insure do
ineftic tranquility. But how are these
objects effected ? The people intended
to ejiablilb justice. What provision have
they made to fulfil that intention ? Af
ter pointing out the courts which should
be established, the 2d fedion of the 3d
article informs us; " The judicial pow
er (hall extend to all cases, in law and
equity, arising under this constitution,
the laws of the United States, and
ti eaties made, or which shall be made,'
under their authority ; to all cases af
fecting ambassadors, other public min
ift'ers and tonfuls ; to all cases of ad
miralty and maritime jurifdiCtion ; to
controverfi.es to which the United States
tball be a party ; to controversies be
tween two or mote Rates; between a
Rate and citizens of another Rate, be
tween citizens of different states, be
tween citizens of the fame Rate claim
ing lands under grant of different Rates,
and between a Rate,, or the citizens
thereof, and foreign states, citizens or
Subjects.
" In all cases affecting ambaffadofs,
other public mihifters and consuls, And
consuls, and those in which a Rate shall
be a party, th^ supreme court shall
have original jurisdiction. In all the
other cases beforeh)entined,the fupreriie
court shall have appellate jurifdi&ion,
both as to law and fad, with such ex
ceptions, and under such regulations as
the Congress shall make."
Thus then we find that the judcial
power fou/l extend to a great variety of
cases, but that the supreme court shall
have only appellate jurifdi&ion in all
admiralty and maritime causes, in all
cohtroverfies between the U. States
and private citizens, between citizens
of different Rates, between citezens of
the fame Rath claiming lands under dif
ferent Rates, and between a citizen of
the United States and foreign Rates,
citizens or Subjects. The honorable
gentleman from Kentucky, who made
the motion on your table, has told us
that the .constitution in its judiciary
ptyvifions ^contemplated only those
cases which could not be tried in the
Rate courts.„ ^uthe will, I hope par
don me when I contend that the consti
tution did. not, merely contemplate, but
did by express words referee to the na-
With most refpe&ful attention I
heard the declaration of the gentleman
from Virginia, of his own sentiment.
" Whatever," said be, “ may be my o
pinion of the confutation, 1 hold my
felf bound to refpecl it." He disdained,
fir, to profefs an affection he did not
feel, & I accept his candour as a pledge
for the performance of his duty.—But
he will admit this necefary inference
from that frank cdnfeffion, that alffio'
he will ftruggle(againft his inclination)
to flipport the constitution, even to the
last moment, yet, when in fpi,e of all
his efforts it dial! fall, he will rejoice in
its dedrudion; Far different are my
feelings.—lt is possible that we are
both prejudiced; and that in taking the
ground on which we refpeclively hand
our judgments are, influenced by ;|ie
sentiments which glow in our hearts.
T, fir, with to support this constitution
because I love it. And I love it be
canfe I confider it as the bond of odr
union ; because in my foul I believe
tiiat on it depends mir harmony and
our peace ; that without it We fnould
soon be plugged in all the horrors of
civil war ; that this country would be
deluged with the blood of its inhabit
ants ; and a brother's hand be railed P
gainft the bosom of a brother.
After these preliminary remarks, I
hope I ffiall be indulged while I confi
der the fubjeft in reference to the two
points which have been taken, the expe
diency and the constitutionality of the re
peal.
jip'l^
tional tribunals a right to decide, and
did focure to the citizens of America a
right to demand dieir decision, in many
cases evidently cognizable in the state
courts. And, what ire these cases ?
They are these in refpd to which it is
by the corftitution ptefumed that the
Rate courts wouhj not always make a
cool and calm investigation, a fair and
just decifioik To fam therefore, a more
perfeß wion, grid to injure domestic t?an
quility, the constitution has said there
ffiall be courts of the Union to try
causes, by the wrongful decision of
which the Union might be endangered ;
or domeflic tranquility be disturbed.
And what courts ? Look again at the
Cases defeated. The supreme courts
has no original juriLiiedon. The consti
tution has . laid that, the judicial powers
hall be veiled Tn tliefupreme and inferior ,
Courts. It has declared that the judi
cial power so veiled ffiall extend to the
cases mentioned, and that the supreme
court fhail not have original jurifdi&ion
in those ca fes. Evidently, therefore it
has declared that thef Shall (in the firft
instance) be tried by inferior courts;
with appeal to the so court. This;
therefore,amounts to a declaration that
the inferior courts stall exiß. Since
without them the citizen is deprived
of those rights for which he Stipulated,
or rather those rights verbally granted
would be aftuaily withheld ; and that
great security of our Union, that ne.
ceffary guard of our tranquility, b : e
completely paralized, if not destroyed.
In declaring then that these tribunals
[hall exist, it equally declares, that the
congress Jhall ordain and eßablifh
them. I lay theyj/^/Z; this is the evi
dent intention, if not the express words,
of the constitution. The convention
in framing, the American people in
adopting, that compaft, did not, could
not presume, that the congtefs would
omit to flo, what they were thus bound
to do. They could not presume that
tlie legislature would hesitate one tfib
ment, in eßablilhihg the organs necefia
ry to carry into effe& those wholesome,
those important provisions.
The hon. member from Virginia has
given us a hiftory of the judicial sys
tem, and in the course of it has told'
us, that the judges of the supreme
court knew when they accepted their
offices the duties they were to perform,
and the salaries they were to receive.
He thence infers that if again called
on to do the fame duties they have no
> right to complain. Agreed. But
that is not the question between ns. —
Admitting that diey have made a hard
bargain, and that we may hold them
to a ftrid performance, is it wife to
exaCt their compliance to the injury of
our conßituents ? We are urged to go
back to the old system : but let us firft
examine the efforts of that system.—
The judges of the supreme court rode<
the circuits, and two of them with the
assistance of a district judge held circuit
courts and tried causes. As a supreme
court they have in molt cases only ari
appellate jurisdiction. In the firft in
stance, therefore, they tried a cause fit
ting as an inferior court, and then on
an appeal tried it over again as a su
preme Court. Thus then the appeal was
from the sentence of the judges to the
judged themselves. But fay, that to
avoid this incoherence, you will inca
pacitate the two judges who fat on the
circuit from fitting in the supreme
court to receive their own decrees.—
Strike them off 1 and suppose
either the fame or a contrary de
cifiori to have been made on another
circuit by two of their brethren ih a
similar case. For the fame reason you
strike them off, and theh you have ho
court left. Is this wile / Is it fate ?
You place jourfelves iR a situation
where your citizens must be deprived
of the advantage given to them of ri
court of appeals, hr else run,he grehr
eft rifque that the decision of the firft
court will carry with it that of the
bther.
The fame honorable thember has
given us a hiftory of thelaw passed the
last session, which he wishes now to re
peal. That bißory is accurate at least
in one important pare of it. I believe
that all amendments were reje&ed, per
tinacioufy reje&ed, and I acknowledge
that I joined heartily in that rejection.
It was for the cleared reason on earth.
We all perfectly underßood, that to a
mend die bpl was to destroy it. That if
ever it got back to the other House it
would perißi. Those, therefore, who
Approved of the general provisions of
that bill, were determined to adopt it.
We fought the practicable good, and
would not in pursuit of unattainable
perfection, Sacrifice that good to the
pride of opinion. We took the bill,
therefore, with its imperfections; con
vinced that when it was once puffed in
to a law, it might easily be amended.
We are now told, that this procedure
was improper ;—nay, that it was inde
cent. That public opinion had declared
itfelf against us. That a majority
(holding different opinions)was already
chosen to the other House; and that a
similar majority was expelled tor that iti
which we fit—Mr. President, are w^
then to understand, that opposition to
the majority in the two Homes ofCon
grtfs is improper, is indecent ? If so-—
what are we to think of those gentle
men, who not only with proper & de
cent, but with laudable motives, (for!
such is their claim) so long, so peffe
verihgly, so pertin.icioufly,oppofed that
voice of the people, which had so re
peatedly, and for so many years, de
clared itfelf against them, through the
organ of their representatives ? Was
this indecent in them? If not, hew
could it be improper For us to seize
the only moment which was left for
the then majority to do what they
deeded a neceffhry act ? Let me again
refer to these imperious demands of
the constitution, which called on us to
eliabiilh inferior courts. Let me re
mind gentlemen of their assertion on
this flodh, that centuries might elapse
before any judicial system could be cf
tablilhed with general tonfent. And
then let me ask, being thus impressed
with a sense of the duty and the difficul
ty of performing that arduous talk,*
was it not wife to seize the auspicious
moment ?
Among the many stigmas affixed to
this law, we have been told that the
President in feleCting men to fill the of
fices which it created; made vacancies
and filled them from the floor of this
House. And that but for the influence
of this circ'umftance, ri majority iri fa
"vbr of it could not have been found.
Let us examine tnif suggestion. It is
grounded on the supposition of corrupt
influence "derived from a hope, found
ed on two remote and successive cor.tin
geodfes. First, the vacancy might or
might not exid; for it depended as well
on the acceptance of another as on the
President, grant ; and Secondly, thel
President might or might not fill it with'
a member of this House. Yet citi this I
vague conjecture, on this unstable
ground, it is interred, that men in high
confidence violated their duty. It is
hard to determine the influence of felt
intcreft on the heart of man. I (hall
not, therefore make the attempt. In
the present case it is possible, that the
imputation may be just, but I hope
hot, I believe not. At any rate gen
tlemen will agree with me,.hat the cal
culation is uncertain and the conjecture
vague.
But let it now, for argument fake,
be admitted. Saving always the repu
tation of honorable men who are not
here to defend themselves. Let it, I
fay, for argument fake be admitted
that the gentlemen alluded to aded un
der the influence of improper motives.
What then ? is a law, that his receiv
ed the varied assent required by the
constitution, and is eloathed with all
the heedful formalities, thereby invali
dated? Can you impair iri force by
impeaching the motives of any mem
ber wlib voted for it ? Does it follow,
that a law is bad, because all those who
concurred in it cannot give good reasons
fbt their votes ? Is it not before us ?
Miiß we not judge of it by its intrinsic
merit? Is it a fair argument, addretf.
ed to our understanding, to lay we
mtift repeal a law, even a good bhe, if
the enaditigof it may have fed effected ,
In an, degree by improper motives? Or
is the judgment of thisHoufe so feeble,
that it may not be trusted ?
Gentlemen tell us, however, that
the la* is materially defective,nay#hat
it is tinconftitutiorial. What follows ?
Gentlemen bid us repeal it. But is this
just reafoping ? If the law be only de^
festive, why not amend? And if un
constitutional, why repeal ? In this case
no repeal can be necefTir,'; the law is
itfelf void ; it is a mere dead letter.
To ffiew that it is unconstitutional, ri
particular elaufe is pointed out, and an
Advertiser.
©M^e anti
Saturday Morning, by WILLIAM TREADWELL, ^C^
PRICE \ DOLLAR 50 CENTS Per Amutm. [ff°"_ 2 °j
[^ADVERTISEMENTS reasonably ^conspicuously inserted=COMMU-
J NICATIONS duly attended to—and every FAVOR THANKFULLY
IACKNOWLEDGED.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THIRTEENTH YEAR.
inference is made, as in the case of
goods, where because there is one con
traband article off board,the whole car
go is forfeited.; Admit for a moment
that the part alluded to were unconsti
tutional, this Would in no wife effed
the remainder. That part would be
void, or if you think proper, you can
repeal that part.
Let us, however, examine the elaufe
objected to on the ground of the con
stitution. It is said, that by this law
the diftriß judges in Tennessee and Ken
tucky, arc removed from office by mak
ing them circuit judges. And again,
that you hriv^ iby law appointed two
new offices, thpfe of circuit judges, and
filled them by law, instead of pursuing
the modes of appointment prefcri&a
by the conflitution. To prove all this,<
the gentleman from Virginia did us
the favor to read those parts of the law
which he condemns, and if I can trull:
to my memory, it is clear from what
he tead, that the law does not remove
these difrift judges, neither does it ap-;
point them to the office of circuit judges.,
It does indeed put down tire diflrift
court; but is so far from destroying the
offices of district judge, that it declares
the perlons filling these offices, Shall per
form the duty of holding the circuit
courts. And so far is it from appoints
ing circuit judges, that it declares the
circuit courts shall be held by the difrift
judges. But gentlemen contend, that
to difamtinue the diftrirt courts; Was in
effect to remove the diftrift judges. This
fir, is so far from being a just inference ;
from the law, that the direct contrary
follows as a necessary result ; for it is
on the principle that these judges con 4
tintie in office after their courts are dis-
Continued; that the new duty of hold
ing other courts is aligned to them# —•
But gentlemen fay, this doctrine mili
tates with the principles wecontend for.
Surely not. It must be rcco||erted, fir;
that we have repeatedly admitted the
right of the legislature, to change,alters
modify, and amend the judiciary system
ft) as best to promote the interest of the
people. We only contend, that you
ihall not exceed or contravene the au
thority by which you aft. But, fay
gentlemen, you forced this new office
on the diftrift judges, and this is in
effect a new appointments l answer,
that the qtieftion can only rirtfebn the
refufal of those judges to aft. But is it j
unconstitutional to assign new duties to
, officers already existing ? I fear rhatif
j this coaftruftion be adopted, ouf la-
I bours will speedily end ; for We ffiall
I be so shackled, that we cannot move.
What is the pra&ice ? Do we not eve
ry day call upon particular officers to
perform duties not ptevioufly assigned
to, or required of them ? and must the
executive in every flich case make a
new appointment?
But as a further reason to reftore,by
repealing this law, the old system, an
honorable member from North-Caro
lina has told us the judges of the Su
preme Court should attend in the Gates
to acquire a competent knowledge of
local institutions, and for this purpose
ihould continue to ride the circuits. I
believe there is great use in fending
young men to travel ; it tends to en
large their vieWs, and give them more
liberal ideas than they might otherwise
pofefs. Nay, if they tefide lohg enough
in foreign countries they may become
acquainted with the manners of the
people, and acquire some knowledge of<
their civil institutions. But lam not
quite convinced that riding rapid!,
from one end of this country to the of
ther is the bell way th Htidy law.^
am inclined to believe that knowledge
may be ffiore conveniently acquired in
the closet than upon the high roal—
It is, moreover, to be prelumea that
the firft magilirate Would, in felc^ing
perlons to fill these offices, take the belt
characters from the different: parts of
' the country, who already possess thq
needful acquirements. But admitting
that the President ihould not duly ex %
ercife in this refpefl, his diferetionarv
powers,and admitting that the ideas of
the gentleman are correct, how wretch
ed must be our condition ! These our
judges,when called on to erercife then*
I fundionri,. would but begin to learn
their trade, and that too at a period of
life when the intellectual powers With
no great facility'can acquire new ideris.
We must; therefore, have a doubltlet
of judges. Qne fetof apprentice judged