The Wheeling repository — Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.], 1807-04-02 00:00:00, page 3

TOR TUP. WHEELING REPOSITORY.
IT was no sooner known that the
Supreme Court had discharged Bollman
and Swartwout, than an indistinct and
sullen murmur of discontent was heard
among the particular friends of the ad
ministration. No direct censure was
expressed, but a portion of vexation and
disappointment was abundantly evident.
Whatever were the feelings of those who
were dissatisfied; from whatever mo
tives those feelings originated, there was
but little said publicly on the subject.
The propriety and necessity of this re
serve and silence, is easily explained.
1 he Supreme Court is, at present,
composed ot men of both parties. On
granting the writ of Habeas Corpus,
there was a division of opinion, in which
men ot the same party were divided.—
Livingston, a friend to the administra
tion, was in favour of granting the writ,
while Chase, certainly not personally
friendly to the administration, was a
gainst it. The Court were dhided in
opinion, on several points involved in
the investigation. They were, however,
unanimously of opinion, that the District
Court oi Columbia had no jurisdiction
over the offence with which th<* prison
ers were charged. A majority of the
Court were of opinion, that there was no
evidence be lore them to prove the pri
soners guilty of treason. The Court
were of course hound to discharge them.
1 his cptrerc-nce of opinion among men
of the same party, cn some points, and
unanimity on other ,, is conclusive evi
dence of the uprightness of the Judges,
even if their hi git and exalted standing
was not sufficient to shield them from
the imputation of improper motives.—
1 he irresisti ile* force of these facts has
been so generally admitted, that 1 have
observed hut one solitary attempt, pub
licly to arraign and condemn the con luct
of the Court. This attempt first appear
ed in the Western Herald, a® an extract
Oj a letter from a member of Congress,
and was, with some air.m id versions, co
pied into the last depository.
It has been sugge ted, that this letter
never was written by a number of con
gress ; but that the'Editors of die He
rald were cither impose'.! upon, or for
ged the letter themselves. I am of a
different opinion. It is no difficult niut
•ter to point the public itter4i in to a
source, from which we might naturally
expect such base and m dig^mit senti
ments. i'iie man, wh > is an apostate
jfrem ever}- part}*; w ho is laioiliAiised to
intrigue and dissimulation ; who never
scrupl. s at tile means by which he can
effect his purposes, and whose govern
ing principle is self-interest, is naturally
led to attribute to others the same im
proper motives by which he himself is
governed. A man who always has his
price, persuades himself that others are
equally corrupt. The greatest scoundrel,
so long as he retains a standing in soci
ety, feels some sense of character. He
is not willing to consider himself a worse
man than others, and being generally
engaged in some dishonest pursuit, he
labours to satisfy his own senss of cha
racter, not by reforming his conduct,
but by framing a system of ethics which
makes all others as dishonest as himself.
From such a character, and from no
other, we might expect the insinuations
and assertions contained in the extract
referred to. \Y hether there is any such
in Congress, and who he is, every one
can decide for himself. I have no doubt
on the subject.
This letter, after statirig that “ the
Court did not know where they [the pri
soners] could he tried,” proceeds to ex
claim, “ Glorious uncertainty of the lazul
Glorious ingenuity of legal talents/” The
direct inference from which is, that this
decision of die Court is a mere evasion,
a legal quibble, laid hold on for the pur
pose of shielding traitors from merited
punishment. What/ Will a member of
Congress assert, that the highest judicial
authorities of our country, men of botli
political parties; men advanced in years;
men of high and honourable character,
selected by the present and former ad
ministrations as qualified by their talents
and integrity, to be trusted with the
lives, liberties and properties of their
rountryim n : Will a member of Congres,
I repeat, insinuate that such men, 1k>M
ing such a station, have prostrated their
honour, their talents,their whole charac
ter, to carver two insignificant individu
als Irom merited punishment? Yes,
this improbable charge has been advan
ced by a member of Congress, and he
has found men weak and wicked enough
to believe and circulate it. Hv what
strange,what unaccountable fatuity, does
this member of Congress, his Steuben
ville friend, and the Editors of the He
rald, suppose the Judges to have been
blinded, whe'l they thus unanimously
agreed in deriding that to be law, which,
in truth, is nothing but a contemptible
quibble, devised by the u glorious inge
uuity of legal talents?”
^This charge is too improbable. Eve
ry honest man, who examines it, wjjl re
ject it as incredible. To prove it false,
it is only necessary to expose its absur
dity. It never can injure the Supreme
Judges. I hey stand on ground too high
to be affected by any correspondence be
tween a member ot Congress capable of
communicating such sentiments, and a
man so indiscreet as to publish them in
a newspaper. But the indelible charac
ter of this transaction cannot be palliated
by its impotency. The writer and pub
lishers of the letter, should be estimated
by the intention they have discovered,
and not by the mischief they have actu
ally committed.
i nat tne decision of the Supreme
Court, with respect to the jurisdiction of
the District Court of Columbia, is cor
rect, I believe no man of legal informa
tion can doubt. Indeed I have never
heard a doubt suggested, except by this
sagacious letter writer. Byway of an
swer to him, I offer the following obser
vations made by Mr. J. Randolph, in the
debate on Mr. Broom’s motion respect
ing the writ of Habeas Corpus. “ When
the constitution gave to Congress ex
clusive jurisdiction over a district ten
miles square, it filled the friends of li
berty with alarm. But no man then
dreamed, that on this blot on the map,
this non-descript region, a King’s Bench
was to he established fiu^he trial of de
linquents against the Pvernraent, cqI
lected from all parts of the country_
The inhabitants of this miserable heath,
men held in a state of bondage to which
no man should submit; who have no
voice in electing the rulers of the coun
try, and are destitute of the right of self
government ; these men arc made the
J U DGES and jurors to try the freemen
of America. Were I on trial, I would
challenge the jury. They are not qua
lified lor this office : they are not my
peers. The people here must be the
tools and expectants o'f ministerial fa
vour. Let them move in their own
humble sphere, but let them never dare
to touch a charge of treason.”
There is another part of this letter
which deserves no ice. The exclama
tion, “ Glorious security of our republi
can government, derived from the pa
triotism of civil Courts/” contains an in
sinuation of a most alarming nature.—
It is indirectly asserted, that a republi
can government requires a stronger se
curity than laws ; that there are occa
| sions, when the u patriotism of civil