Alexandria advertiser and commercial intelligencer. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1800-1803, 1803-02-12

would be /; ouSht II 10 DC Saveii >" .'i-'
cafe.
The applicants fay, that they are at.
,empt,ag 10 Obtain before Court OF Jul
tie, remedy for a wrong done, BY the
Secretary1of State, in Withholding from
them certain comrifions, as Jui}iees Of
Peace. to whiefl,hty c ain right. 1 hey
fav an extract from the Executive Jour-
nails. that the Senate adviled and content
ed TO their appointment, is, as hey are adj
yifed, indifpendble in their caufe. Now
what anfwer can be given TO this Is 1t
no, dictate Of common isnfe, that they
fhonld have il !? Have they tot right to
it, upon the plain principles of our focal
compact, unlefs fone injury will ariis by
granting it; The grant can inju7e no per-
ION, and refuial may irjure the appli-
Giants. But i, was laid, BY furnilhing
this extract the Prefdent would be put 10
jeopardy. He could not poRibly dilco-
yer the reafon of all the teIment and, fen
iibili,y about tbe PRECEDENT. Was he IN
danger or could he be in danger from II
If an improper attack was made upon the
Prefident, he would agree that 70 far from
affing in little Senate ihould rally in his
defence.
Let Us fec, laid he, what the faasare.
The lequea is for an Extract from the
Executive Journal OF the Senate, as leiti-
mony in Court of juitice, and claimed
to be sbfolutely neceilary TO eitaoliih the
rights of individuals. fle kaew nothing
OF the cauie, except what he derived from
the petition, and The declarations OF gen
,lemen in debate, by which he learnt,
thar mandamos was prayed for againa
the Secretary of State for Withholding
certain commiGions which had been com
pleted by the Prefdent, and left with the
Secretary for delivery. The court was
authorized by ffs,ute Of the federal Le-
gilsture, among other things to illue
wrirs of mandamus, in cafes warranted by
the principles and ulages Of law, to any
courts appointed, or person, boldmg 11sees
ander the autboyiy y'tbe U. STATES.
A plain fmple proceeding, before,a court
competent to hear and decide. What rea-
fonable caule of alarm could this be to the
friends of the PEcGdent? He could fee
none. And the gratuitous obfervatious of
the gentleman from Maryland, tMr.
Wright that the court were unfriendly to
the PRECEDENT, and that the applicants had
done this 10 injure him, were, in bis OPT
nioo, out of order. improper. and totally
irrelevant. But it was laid, that this
extract could do no good TO tfoGe who
requei9 it; becauie it did not make out
their cafe. Gentlemen, he thought, at
fctfed to sknow more about the cafe Of
thete applicants than was requiiite, for
juit deciiion Of the petitioner. What was
it to the Senate, if the tefimony is NOT
complete : Suffice it to fay, it is part
and necenary part of their tefimony.
Suppof-, fad he, Tor the fakeof argument,
that the Secretary ofState, has been brb- 4
ed to reierye theie commiilicns, or, fup-
pofa the Prehdent had committed them
to me, TO carry them to the petitioners,
and ] had deitroyed them corruptiy, and
a claim was made before court OF juf-
tice for remedy againf the wrong 70
done. Could damages be obtained, IN
leis the rIaintif could flow, that every
pre-reqaiiise was complied with to make
theie commidions valuable And among
the reif, that the Senate had adviled and
confented to the appointments? Or, put
the queition the other way, could not /
defend fucceisfully againi} an action, if
could iAew that no fuch ad.Uice and consent
was, had, and that therefore the commit
iions were Of no value? He thought it
clear, that the teffimony would be i'm
poftant, though perhaps not all which the
cafe would require. But another, and, if
pofible, more extraordinary objeetion
had been made; that an impeachment was
all the remedy which was applicable to
4 n 4 T.