Jenks's Portland gazette., 1802-03-08


which the debate has been already detailed But
the following ipeeches We have thought il import
publifh they preftEt views in fome meafure
new, aud eitainy deeply intereting] (IsfeRgsueey)
MR.. BRECKENRIDGE faid, he did nor expect to
have rilen again this iuhec, Especially 70
late an hour; (about o'cook) bat that he would oeg
leave anGwer Jingle argument, which had been
much Prehed to-day, aud he would promife detain
the Houfe but a few minutes.
did not expect (continued Mr.. B. TO find the doc
trne Of the power Of the aunuI the laws of
Congre(s, which they conceived uncnnRitutional, 70
feriouily United Indeed do think il reIeva-et
the fukeGt before us but il has been nited on,
hall not prelume be of order in replying It.
II is fad that the different departments OF the COW
ernment are nteuded by the contribution operate
checks each other and that this power is lodged
with the courts 70 check the eglature. II this be
even true, without enquIrns into the policy aad WIZ
dom Of this depo6t Of overegn controu the courts
would ak who checks the il 5sy violate the
conlttuion Would they not by this doctrine have the
abloute direction Of the government To whom are
they under the contribution contended for by eentle
men, reiPonllbe But deny the power and ak gen.
tcmen to point that part Of the contribution which
grants Il. can find uch power. Is il not remark
able, that 1t the courts pos(s this high power sud
not appear in the letter of the contribution, but hould
have been left to contribution aAd Implication only
Andisi rot uy4fonillng, that the conRutsu fboad
IN its abundant fep4rateand accurately define
the powers aligned TO each department. have omitted
an explicit declaration, 70 important power, as that
OF the cour;s 10 nulify all the as of Congrel which
~ tfeir opinion, were contrary to the conaituton.
Never fuch high and tranfe ndant power in anv
government, much leis n like ours, competed Of
powers iPeciay gwen and Defined claimed or excreicd
by eogSrza only. The doctrine Of contributions not
warranted by the letter of an nrument il dangerous
IT the extreme. Let men once looIe on conructions
and Implications and at wha, point will yoa op them
u the fra Of Englh Judges dilcoverng the latent
meanIng and intentions of law makers meanings not
expreeG in the letter Of the laws 10 be adopted here
IN the coRitruehon Of the conftiGuton Once admit
the doctrine, thar either judges leghators are to be
lnduged in thee afuta aud wire drawn confru6tions
20 enlarge their own powers, coutro thofe of
ethers, then would Join the gentemen in the oppof-
ton iB declaring, thai the contribution would indeed be
in danger
To makc the contribution a practical fyaem, the
power of the annu the avs of Conerels cam
not peihbiy exit. My idea of the fnhea, in feg
words is That the contribution intended feparaton
only Of the powers veed in the three great
giving to each the exeuve authority Of acting On the
fusjeets committed 70 each: That each are intended
TO revove within the fphere of their own orbits are
Teiponhble tor thcir own motion only and are not to
direct eoutrou the courfe of Others That thofe
Tor example who make laws, preiumed TO have IN
equal attachment 10, and interea ia the contribution
are equally bound by oath fupport il and have "a
equal right 70 give conlruGtion 10 il That the
VI Ohc department OF the powers
lary veted in thar department Of high authority
At lealt, the contribution given 20 il by any other
department That il is IN fact more competent TO that
department 10 which powers excluGveIy confded
20 decide upon the proper exercGe Of h ofe powers
than any other departments which fuch powers are
not intrulied, and who not conieouentIy under
fuch high and relpohGble obligations for their conlli
tutenal exercc and that therefore the leginsure
would haye equal right annal the decfons of he
courts founded their conitructon Of the contribution
the would have annul the acts OF the cpf
laturc, founded on their contribution.
Although therefore, the courts may take upon them
20 give eecihons which go to mpeach the couiulion-
ality of the law, aad which for time may obnruef
is operation yet I cCntend that luch law is not the
leis obligatory becauie The organ through which il is
60 be executed has reiufed rs aid pertinaeous adj
herence OF both departments their opinions would
toon bring the queif'on ihue which would decide
IN whom the ioyereign power oflegaation reGded and
whole contribution of the conituton as TO the law
5hakng power osght TO prevail.
1t the courts have right 70 examine into and de-
eide upon the confitutionaty Of laws their decion.
ought to be fuai and efectu1l, Are gentlemen then
prepared TO ADMIT, that IN cafe the courts were TO DE-
Slsre your revenue, mpoa and appropriation laws un
cOnltitutona thar they would thereby be neeefarily
botted out ofyour astute book and the operation. Of
your government conlcquenty arreited Il is MAKING
IN my opinion, mockery Of the high powers Of leef
iation. fee humbed by the doctrine, and enter nv
protch agsnlt it. Gentlemen rot aware TO what
dangerous lengths 1t may be extended. lie, them
therefore,conhder well before they in on an aGnmp
tion Of power by the Judiciary, which goes 10 place
the legidsure at its feet lie; not 70 humiliating
condition be admitted, under authority relling mere
Iy on application and oonltruttion. II NAV invite
rate OF things, which we not jufifed hy the con
fituiion in Prgsmag will happen, and which, fhould il
happen, all men OF al parties mna deplore
Mr.. MORRIS.-I rife to congratulate this bcrc.
and America, that have now, though late reached
che true poinr which this decifon turns Here
knew we would coms. Are we then prepared for a
Honfohdaed government of thefe ltstes Ifthe doet
Iine advanced BY gentlemen prevail if it be true,
1hen is there legGAture in America but that Of the
United States. All rhe arguments uled BY gentlemen
N the courfc Of the debate to this end Now
happily the concluhon Is avowed. They afc how vour
Judges got this power Of deciding the con(itutiona
ity Of the laws i-They ak, is it in the contribution
1hey derived 1t from higher authority than the con-
ihtuticn the contribution of msn-the organization
et human nature. You pafs laws the Judges decare
ther application to individual cafes their deciGon
- hni. It NUT be final. Thence the riobt Of N.
Judges TO pronounce on the laws.
Mark fhe end fo xybtrh 49,. -.