The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-01-21

|S2ICty. .t-.-
Gentlemen are in the Constant habit Of eu-
logzing the English Judiciary. What Kind
Of independence is theirs? Previous to the
18th year of William the third, the king had
the power Of removing his Judges. BY a
law made in that year, the king is prevented
from removing them unless by an address of
both Houses of Parliament. Blackstone in
forms us that by the statute of King Wilt
am, and by a statute made in the first wear
OF the reign of George the third, which pro-
vidcs that the Judges shall hold their Offices
notwithstanding the demise of the king, the
independence of the E.gliSh Judiciary is
completely secured. Paley expresses 81
milar opinion. What then, Sir, is the diff
ference between the English system, and
that which we contemplate! Our resolution
provides for the removal of a Judge by the
two branches OF the legislature, without the
aid of the President. We thereby avoid the
danger arising from Executive influence -
Again, the English parliament elected for
the term of seven years is known to be a COR
rupt body, and completely under the influence
OF the ministers. Executive influence there
tore in that country, may still indirectly at
tain that object, which according to the the
org of the government it cannot reach. In
this country we have proud superiority in
this respect. One of the branches of our le-
gislature being removable by the people
every two years, it is not to be expected that
ErecnffUe influence can ever cause the re-
moval of Judge. From this view of the sub
Ject 1t appears clearly that if this amend
ment is adopted, the Federal Judiciary will
be more independent of the Executive than
the English Judiciary, at the same time that
they will be placed under the controul of the
people, to whom they ought to be amenable.
Before / conclude my observations. Mr..
a. hn,. lanv u r
the arguments Of the gentleman from Ere
derrick (Mr Tucker) We are called on to
recollect that Henry the apostle of Liberty.
looked to the independence of the Judiciary
as the safeguard of our rights. | believe,
Sir, that Henry objected to the federal Judi
ciary on account of the cnormity of its DOW
ers, and because he thought he could foresec
that IT would swallow UP the safe Judiciary.
wish lie may not have been a true Prophet
When it is recollected that Henry frequently
eulogized the English Judiciary, / think il is
not unfair to conclude that if he were now a.
nongst US, his eloquence would be enlisted
on our side. But why should the gentleman
quote the opinions Of others; how often have
we been cautioned not to repoSc ON the au-
thority OF great names?
1--WE are hurried away BY passion, and
because Burr has been acquitted, we are
" departing from our old political principl, s."
wish not to turn the attention of the com
mittee to that subject; we are perhaps COM
ing too near home, feelings might be excited
which would perhaps be unfavorable to the
calm investigation of the resolution. As TO
Aaron Burr will only observe that trust
his nefarious projects and schemes will short
iy go, where his reputation has long since
gone, 9 TO the tomb OF all the Capulets."
NO reliance is placed on the integrity of
congress by the gentleman from Frederick,
tor he asks are Congress and the people con-
vertibe terms; if the people ought to be
entrusted with the power of removing a
Judge, shall Congress have the same power!
1t IS true that Congress and the people are
not convertible terms, but Congress is the
best organ for expressing the will of the peo-
pie, and it is well known that the people
cannot assemble in Il body to deliberate on
the Propriety OF displacing an unworthy SER
want from the bench.
We are asked if we have forgotten those
hard unconstitutional times, when Alien and
Sedition Laws were enacted when AL UNI
fortunate wretch was tried under this roof
Tor sedition; we are asked if Judge Chase
would have acted as he did towards Callsn-
der if he had not had Congress at his back,
and whether we should ever have had a tri-
al for sedition without the interposition of
Congress. No, Sir, have not forgotten those
times; | trust the people never will forget
them I; i trust that the four years admins
tration of Mr.. Adams will be held up bea-
con to warn the people against political dan
gers. But what does the conduct Of the fe-
deral Judges at that time prove? Did they
come forward as the friends and guardians
of the people in the house of DANGER? Did
they declare the alien and sedition laws un-
constitutional! BY what means were those
evils removed? Certainly not by the Judges,
but by the public voice. They rigidly en-
forced those laws, and stopped to be prosecu-
tors under them. The history Of that admi-
nistration proves incontestibly that the fede-
raj Judiciary cannot BIT relied on to protect the
people from the tyranny of an usurping Com
gress.-But, Sir, sedition law was about to
be fastened on us without the aid of Congress.
The federal Judges seemed anxious to a
bridge or destroy the freedom of speech, un-
der the auspices Of the English Common
Law. j am not mistaken Luther Bald
win was indicted in the federal court of n
Jersey under the Common Law, and punish
ed by fine and imprisonment for using Ger
tain opprobrious words against the Presi-
dent. 80 that these guardians of the people
were perfectly willing to introduce sedition
law without being supported by Congress-
An objection is made to this amendment be-
cause no man Of honor and delicate feelings
will ascend the bench if it is adopted.-
What, Sir, is not the English bench praced
with men Of honor and delicate feelings ,
And how does it happen that we have men of