Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1801-1806, 1802-02-06

!, il pofible. that fuit wili 60 on diminihing as
the gentleman ieems TO think Il reafon 70 pre-
dominant IL the millenium 70 near al hsad !
On the contrary is not our commerce incraGng
with great fApidity IL not our wealth increal-
ing And will not controversies ariie III proper
tion to the growth Of our numbers and property
Conrroverles. which will 90 to federal tribunals
a. foon as the judiciary iyAem is fully etabliih-
ed. BY the documents quoted by the gentleman
from Kentucky, il appears, that morc budncis
has been lately done in the federal courts, ,hanin
any other ansecedent time, except in one or two
couaties in PennfyIvanis.
Besdes. tfaid Mr.. Mafon,) even il there be
nota great predure Of buiineis, had we not bet
ter pay the paltry fun Of 80 or 10000 dollars
for fyftem too broad, than have one that is
too narrow Is it not melancholy con6dera-
tion, that in many OF the European States,
the COTS are equal to the principal contended for
Ii would be honorable to the United States TO
exhibit adif;rcnt example. II would be hon.
orabe TO them to hold out an example, even If
confined to foreigners, of prompt and efica-
cious jofiice, though at the expcnce of 90 900
dollars. ,Such an example would be cauie for
national triumph, and our people would exult
in it.
Infomuch, therefore. as to render the judges
rsfpeetable. il was necefary TO make their sp-
| pointment permanent, as time, labor, experience
and long fudy, were required to perfect any
| man in Knowledge of the laws of his country
inafmsch as il has been thought good policy that
the Judges fhould be we'll paid and that they
lhould be 10 placed as to bc divefied Of all fear.
and neither TO look 10 the right or 10 the left |;
inafmuch as they fhouh b: 20 placed as TO rem.
der them independent of leeifliuve as we'll as of
executive power he hoped this law would n,t
be reps I'd.
1hcic were the reafons, which Mr.. Malon
! aligned as thoie which would influence his de-
| cidon. He acknowledged, that he had not en-
tered the Hopfe prepared to offer his fenti-
| nients; bat as the qucftion was about 10 be put,
ne had thought il bea to offer them, fuch as
they were, rather than to give Client vote on
iubjett of fuch great importance.
Mr.. WRIGHT, of Maryland, faid it muft
be agreed that this fabjetf was one of great in
fortance from its effect upon our revenues. IF
the repeal OF the aet of lait fefion was confitu-
siona, he prefumed there could be little doubt
OF its expediency from the documents on our ia
bic. Has the contribution vsfted the rgiaa,ure
with power over the fnbjeet of the rsfolution !
fcet OF flux of PATTON, be repealed by refax of
| featon. He believed that il had been iMrodu.
ced at the period OF an expiring administration.
II had been reGftcd by the republican fde Of the
Sera,e and he trufed that nov on the return
| of rcaion IL would be repealed.
An alluion had been made to the hatc OF
MARYLAND, which had repealed 4 law refpeeiing
the judiciary. Mr.. w. here quoted the conai-
| tuition ID that fatc. Whole provifons, he obferv-
ed. 10 tar as refpefted the tenure ofthe Office of
aJudge, correfponded with rhoie Of the conaito-
tion OF the United Sta,es.-The Legi1ature Of
that State had been Of opinion, and correctly too
that they did poaeis the power Of repeating law
formed by their predeceifors. And the legina.
cure ct the United States poisfIed the fans cow.
or. This they had already determined by the
very att Of the lsa iellion, which, while it crea-
f.d number ofnew judges, aboliihed the Offices
of fcve'al diitrica judges.
II Vas clear that she conaitution meant to
guard the officer, and not the Office. Will il be
iaid that what rhe legiilaiure makes o.day rhey
cannot annihilate TO. morrow. Even as to the
judges OF the Supreme Court, had not the law
| hrt eonititnied fix, and was Il not now reduced
BY law to five And ii Congreh has power to
reduce the member Of the fuperior, have they not
the fame power to reduce the number Of inferior
judges Are VIC to be etcrnally boxnd by the fol.
lies OF law. which ought never to have been
paacd
Why the exprefion in the contribution,
The Judicial power fhall be veRed in fuch infe-
rior courts as Congrefs may from time TO time, or.
dain and cGablih," If il had been iatende6, as 10
now contended, that the Office being once be-
aowed, no change can he made.
Ifthe cafe of thoie, who hare accepted thofe
Offices, be conGdercd as hard one, may il not
be faid that they knew the contribution, and the
| tenure by which their Offices were to be held.
In our regard for individual interef, we ought
no, to iaeri6ce the great intereRs Of our country
and was it not demonarable that, if ~ judges
| were fuiicient when 1900 fuits exiRed, they
we're equally 70 when there were no more than
100.
TIE gentleman from Manachufe,n was
wrong in Eating that Maryland was the only
fate that had repealed a Law creating judiciary
Office. Virginia, If he was not miGRformed,
had oonc the fame thing. But we wanted no,
| thefe precedens. Our own archives furaifhed
US with abundant precedents. We had reduced
the judges Of the Supreme Court from fix to FIVE,
we had snnihilated two diRrifts. The very
gentleman oppoied now to the repeal Of this Law
had voted for thcie meafures. Thus il appear.