The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-01-14

that celebrated ca,se LAWYERS employee: n
ms d,Jence icscricG to This sophistical doc
tripc, and embraced sophistical opinions in
which atten6cs arc too apt to indulge Oh
most occasions. This doctrine was advanced
IT mistake rot by FIR. Harper. Butwas it
not denied by the managers of the impeach-
ment and controverted by the gentleman
who concluded the prosecutions Was it n.e
even yielded at length by that proteus of the
law Mr.. Martin! Was it not believed that
he thought the cause of his client might be
injured by insisting too pertinacioasly on such
sophisms-that by drawing the cord tootight
1t might be broken, and that it would have
been better to yield, than to. maintain so un-
tenable- position My memory may per-
haps deceive me on this subject, as it is long
since ihavc examined the report of the trial.
Yet whatever may have been the opinion Of
counsel, let me askhow did the senate decide p
Did they pronounce the principle contentled
for. or can we determine on what principles
they have decided, Wien their opinions are
but general declarations of guilt or limo
cence on the several charges exhibited a.
gainst Mr. Chase? Or if we admit this
principle to have been decided BY them
contrary to the provisions of the Consts-
tuition; contrary to the Interpretation given
to that instrument by most of the best re-
publicans Of those days, though consistent
ly with the principles now advanced !; let
me ask IT this senate is the immaculate
body to whom in the hour of danger We
shall look for protection from the oppressi-
ons of the Judiciary But in truth, Sir. we
do'nof find that they have so decided Il, tie
trial of Chase, and the case of Pickering
evinces that another principle has governed
them. Why was he removed? Was he chare-
ed with an lndictable offence. In quoting
this case the gentleman. appears to have cit
n g c,,ite -
to have forgotten TO inform us that he was
removed either for druhsenness-unacy, or
inccpacity. Such however was the fact, &
1t furnishes sufficient evidence that if sena-
tors, tor party purposes do not fritter away
the constitution, itsprovisions are amply suf-
fcient to effectuate every beneficial end
The trial OF Mr.. Chase however serves to
elucidate this question. u shows that even
senators are not at all times toebe b!in,lIy'
conided in The mode of propoinding the,
questionin that case he's aiways appeared to
me to be judicial .ggIe, calculated oscreens
vice whenever, part spirit might dictate a
wish to 90 50. Look moreover at the votes
OF federal gentlemen On that question: How
wohtfcrfitilv eoincitieJlt WIS there: cns. a. :
mcnsst them who voted against Mr.. Chuse.
their former adhcTept and supporters E5t
one! Without arragGinT the motives ofthose
gentlemen, I viii ask, if it drcs not ircoirest
the operation Of party prejuG;ces ;--preindi-
ces which, iE they canbc brougI,t ihto action
as the auxi!ial'ies Of vice, mIy with not less
probability ard with equal effect be exertcd
in the oppression efxirtue. This solitary cir
cunostancc ought 20 throw auch light or, this
subject and induce gentlemen to hesitate
whether this branch os the government Is en-
titled 70 so unlimited confidence as is prynos-
ed to be placed in then, i should ieid them
to reflect on the propriety ofplacing inthe Sc
nate, power not only to1ecidc as 1T present.
but to decide w..hcgt charges, wieiront evi.
dcnce,-- of ccurFc without responsibility:
a power which must inevitably give still grca-
ter scope to the operation of within, CAPRICE.
personal dislike and party arimositv
MIR. Chairn,on--it he's been contended that
the necessity for an alteration in the copsti-
triton is manifested by the numerous incor-
rect decisions which the federal bench has
already pronounced ard may continue TO pro-
INDICATE. Many Of these opinions have been
cited and controvertsd, and among others
the question of the existence of the common
law in TIE y. S. has been mentioned And
is the argument then correct, that because
OUR bench is subject 10 Human error and hi
man frailty, we Must lessen their iudeDen-
dencc? Can we expect any. system to Sc
cure to lis perfection; and that the bench is
TO exhibit exemption from error which we
seek IN VAN eIseWneTe! But who is 20 de-
eide that thece opinions cited by the gentle
man arc erroneousf re who have not the
benefit Of that train OF reasoning and legal
authority s>lat has been submitted to them
or the gentleman who has giycaus the cases
without afiording and perhaps without pos
sessiDg all those lights that may hSvc Been
thrown on thena? For raf own part hesitate
not to declare any decision Affirming the ax-
istence of the common INV amongst as. to be
NloDstrous and destructive OF orr RIGHTS sn6
liberties bat this vita the other exceptions
able opinions of the courts, may with much
more reason be attributed TO the depentehce
of tho Judiciary on Executive and Scpatorjal
favour, than their too great independence Of
the two Houses of Congress. They may be
attributed to that influence over Their minds
which existed as soon rs it was discovered
that whilst they had little to fear, they had
every thing to hope. An Eiswnrth and .
Jay were sent on foreign missions and Judi
cial Independence was undermined For nv
part ! world cordially unite III restoring it,
and in rendering tire Judges of our federal
courts not merely secure in their persons and
in the tenure CT their Offices, bur forever in
dependent of Presidential favour and patron,
age: Incapable of promotion BY tho.e whose
interest il might be to cc,rspt, while they
remain amcnable only to the tazv when gull
ty Of offences.
.r M.