Jenks's Portland gazette., 1802-06-07


an -siele of faith, jut a. may fnit prefen.
CONVEX ience.
The qnefiion in agitation, refpeaing the ia.
diciary department, calls up another inilance of
oppofiion, between the former ideas Of Mr..
Jefr-rlcn and his recent condua. The leading
pofit ons which have been advanced as explain
atory Of The policy Of the contribution, in thu
arudure of the different departments, and as
proper to difed the Interpretation of the provi-
Gons which were contrived to fecure the inde
p-udence and 6rninefs If the Judges, are 10 be
ieen in very emphatical and diltind form in
the Notes on Virginia. The'pafage in which
they appear, deterve to be cited at .er 9Th, As
well for its intrinfic merit, as by way ot com
ment upon the true chara6fer of its author !;
preienring an interesting contraf between the
maxims, which experience had taught him while
governor of Virginia, and thole which now
guide bin at The official head of great patty
in the United States.
Itis in theft words -
gall The powers of government, legina,ive,
executive aud Judiciary, reiult 10 the legilauve
body. The concentrating thief: in the fame
harts Is preciiely the definition of defpo,ic gov
ernment. 1t will be no allrviation that thele
and not by ipgle one. One hundred and
feventy three defpots would furely be as oppref
five as one. Let thofe who dou5t il iufn their
eyes on the Republic Of Venice. As lite will
it avail Us that they are choien BY ouffelves.
An el8iVs SsJp0fJfm was not The gcgernmel i we
Tough Tor but one which thould not only be
founded on free principles, bat in which the
powers of government fhould be TO divided and
balanced among fevera bodies of magiitracy,
as that 10 one could ranicend their legal Limits,
without being efeaualiy CHECKED and ,s4raiasd
by the Others For this Teafon that conven-
ion which paGei the ordinance OF government,
laid IFS foundation on this BATS, that the egf-
lstive, executive and Judiciary departments
Mould be ieparate and diltird 10 that no per-
toD iEould eaeroife the powers of more than
oue of them AZ the fame time. But no 5ayyicr
cpa, proza;dsd 5et7uesn tbsjs jspual fooUsrs The
Judiciary and executive members were LETT de
peudeas On the legiGstiye for their frbfiifence
n office, and ione OF them for their oontinl-
ance ID Il. Iflhsrefore the eglature aE,umes
ekeeu,iye and Judiciary powers, no oppofition
is likely 10 be made ; nor i made can be ef
fesaual; becaufe in that cafe, they may pnt
their proceedings nto,ihe fo,m of an ae of AZ.
lesnbly, which viii render .hem obligatory on
tle other branches. They have accordingly
in many iinRances decided rgbJ which lheuli b1ve
been icft to judiciary eontr0vey; and The dret70u
IF tbs fxscafiVe, darng tbs suhoie fine e thar j
,lon, is becoming kabituai and familiar"
Thi, PAD e fully recognizes the fsveral i'm
porsant truths that The tendenty of our gov
eInmehts is towards a concentration of the pow
ers Of the diHe ent Departments in the iegla
tive body; that fnch concentration is precH--
ly The definition of deipotiiin, and that an ef-
feaual 5arrRr between he reipettive depart
ments ought to exit. Ii afo, by itrong im-
piication, admits that officers during good be
havour are independent of the leginatme for
their continuance in Office. This implication
feems to be contained in the following fen
tence :--s. The judiciary and executive mem
bers we're left dependent on the iegihatore for
their iubfiaenee in office, and /oms of them for
their continuance in it," The word iome,' i'm
plies that Others were not left thus dependent
and TO what delcription Of officers can the ex
ception be better applied than to The judges,
the tenure of Whole Offices was during good be
b0oiour ?
The fentments of the Prehdent, delivered at
period when he can be fuppo(sd 70 have been
under no improper bias, NUT be REGARDED by
all thofc who reiped his Judgment, as no light
evidence of the truth of the doctrine for which
we contend. Let u, however, refunc AMI
puriue the fahj-d on is merit, without relying
upon the aid of 70 variable and fallible author.
ily.
AT an early part Of the difcnliion in this Ex-
animation, conltruetion of the contribution
was fuggened, 10 which it may not be amils
to return 1t amounts 70 this, that Congrefs
have power to new-model, or even 70 abrogste
an inferior court, but net 10 abolih the Office
or emoiuments of a judge OF fueh court pre-
viouly appointed. l. the congregational debates,
iome Of the tpeakers againft the repealing law,
appear to have taken it for granted, that the
abregatios ef fbs eoars mua draw With ii rhe
abolition eftbejxdgfs. and therefore have denied,
10 totalty, the power of abrogation. In the
courts of thefe papers too, it has been admit
tied, that if the prel-rvatoa OF the judges can
not be reconciIed with the power TO annul the
courr then the extence Of this power is right,
ly denied. Bot 10 an affair Of iuch vaft mag
nisude, it is AL important to fnrvey with the