Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-01-12
Dirginta Nrgue.
TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1908.
r I C H M o N ID:


raj days past, very animated and interes-
ting; particularly on the subject of Mr..
ChoIson's amendment to- the constitution of
the United States, the discussion relative
to which is not yet finished. The argu-
ments OH both sides are urged with great
zeal and eloquence, and some of them are,
in substance, as follows: A
In favor of the appointment it is conten-
ded that the power of the Judges of the fe-
deral courts is enormous and dangerous
their jurisdiction extending ssto ali cases,
Gin law and equity. arising under the con-
" stitution, the laws of the United States
" and treaties made undertheir authority
"to all cases affecting ambassadors, other
"public ministers and consuls to all cases
ssof admiralty and msritime Jurisdiction
ssto controversies to which the United
estates shall be party TO controversies
tsbetween two or more states, between ci-
"tizcns of different states, between citizens
tof the same state claiming lends uads r
sgrants of different states; and between
" the citizens of any state & foreign states,
g. citizens or Subjects" and in addition TO
all this, they having nsnrhed the power of
declaring any act of Congress uncon titu-
tional and thereby of annulling it; that
their oath TO support the const tuition ofthe
United States cannot be considered as q
grant ofhogyer, but only as IMPOSING du-
~ on them, in common with all the other
officers of government who take the same
oath, which dnty requires their obedience
to the laws regularly enacted by the con-
stituted authorities, and cannot authorize
them. to declare such laws to be void that
IL Congrcss passes Unconstitutional laws
the only check upon them should be the
l. 4 -
these extensive powers, legitimately exer.
cised and arbitrarily assumed by the judg-
rs, should be their responsibility to the
people; that, on the contrary, as the sys-
TEN now stands, they are scarcely respon-
sible at all, the tcrrors of impeachment
having dwind,ed TO nothing, in consequence
Of the event of the trial of that mammoth
of delinquents Judge Chase" in which it
was substantially decided that nothing but
a conviction before the Senate of his hav-
ing committed an inaictable offence was
Sufficient to remove Judge from Office |;
that other OiTeGces or immoraliiies which
disgrace the bench ofjusiice, us well as
judges entertaining erroneous and perni-
cious otiRionS relative to the rights of the
states or of the people, ought be sufici-
eut for his removal; that the Senate of the
u. s. on whose vpte official appointments
depend, is very improper tribunal for
the trial OF impcachments; thatihe voice
OF the immediate representatives Of the
people, ought also to be heard on the ques-
ton OF continuing IN employment, or dis
missing thsir public servants; and that
no oppression. -oIi unjust persecution of a
Judge could nationally be unprecedented
from the adoption of the amendment, since
two thirds Of bnth Hons0s Of Congress
would be requisite for decision against
HIM. and that regard for their own repu-
tations, which the members must feel, as
well as their fear of the indignation oftheir
constituents would be his sufficient safe
guards
These were few of the arguments in
support OF the resi- lution.5
- On the other SHE, it was warmly con-
tended, that the powers of the Federal
Courts are essentially necessary as check
on the eucroachments OF the other depart.
TnentS Of the government upon the liberties
Of the people that the judges are the
great barrier 10 1irotect the citizens from
despotism and save the constitution from
violation ; that, placed in complete state
ofirhependenceb y competent salaries, and
free from the influence of corruption by
executive favor, or of intimidation by ar
bitraIy removals from ofice, they would
have no motives TO induce them to do wrong;
that tins desirable state of things ought to
be accomplished by an amendment 10 the
constitution very different from that now
proposed, by dePriving the President of
the right of nominating judge to any lu-
crative Office, as had been very improper
lip done in the cases of Ellsworth and .{av :;
that, at present, the judges are bound by
their ostls, whenever law passed by
Congress is in conflict with the constitution,
70 obey the latter iastead of the former !;
that this was not an asurpatiOn, but an ex-
ercise Of power necessarily conveyed ard
guaranteed to the judges BY the Conss.-
tuition itself; that Congress had already
frequently infringed the Constitution, Of
which the Alien and SediliOn laws
were plain and palpable instances and
that formerly one of strongest grounds Of
complaint against the Federal Judges was
their carrying into effect the Sedition law i,
Notwithstanding IT'S tlagranily violating The
Constitution that ifthe power OF removal
now proposed WIS conferred on congre s.. no
Judge would hereafter be hardy cnoughto
declare any Of theirHcts unconstitutional,
however ubiquitous and oppressive they
might be; that 1t is not true that Judge
cannot be impeached and turned cut Of OF
fee for offences not indictsblc, the coutrs- .
~ having been proved in the case Of Judge
Pfckering that this odious doctrine was
judceJ ccnteUded for by Mr.. Barher as
Counsel for Judge Chasr, but had never
been directly sanctioned nv the Senate If