The Life of John Marshall, Volume 3: Conflict and construction, 1800-1815. Beveridge Albert Jeremiah

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ Republicans determined to permit no further delay; for the first time in its history the House was kept in session until midnight.278 At twelve o'clock, March 3, 1802, the vote was taken on the final passage of the bill, the thirty-two Federalists voting against and the fifty-nine Republicans for the measure.279 "Thus ended this gigantic debate," chronicles the historian of that event.280 No discussion in Congress had hitherto been so widely reported in the press or excited such general comment. By the great majority of the people the repeal was received with enthusiasm, although some Republicans believed that their party had gone too far.281 Republican papers, however, hailed the repeal as the breaking of one of those judicial fetters which shackled the people, while Federalist journals bemoaned it as the beginning of the annihilation of all that was sane and worthy in American institutions.

      "The fatal bill has passed; our Constitution is no more," exclaimed the Washington Federalist in an editorial entitled

"Farewell, a long Farewell, to all our Greatness."

      The paper despaired of the Republic – nobody could tell "what other acts, urged by the intoxication of power and the fury of party rage" would be put through. But it announced that the Federalist judges would disregard the infamous Republican law: "The judges will continue to hold their courts as if the bill had not passed. 'Tis their solemn duty to do it; their country, all that is dear and valuable, call upon them to do it. By the judges this bill will be declared null and void… And we now ask the mighty victors, what is your triumph?.. What is the triumph of the President? He has gratified his malice towards the judges, but he has drawn a tear into the eye of every thoughtful patriot … and laid the foundation of infinite mischief." The Federalist organ declared that the Republican purpose was to force a "dissolution of the Union," and that this was likely to happen.

      This significant editorial ended by a consideration of the Republican purpose to destroy the Supreme Court: "Should Mr. Breckenridge now bring forward a resolution to repeal the law establishing the Supreme Court of the United States, we should only consider it a part of the system to be pursued… We sincerely expect it will be done next session… Such is democracy."282

      Senator Plumer declared, before the final vote, that the passage of the Republican Repeal Bill and of other Republican measures meant "anarchy."283

      The ultra-Federalist Palladium of Boston lamented: "Our army is to be less and our navy nothing: Our Secretaries are to be aliens and our Judges as independent as spaniels. In this way we are to save everything, but our reputation and our rights284… Has Liberty any citadel or fortress, has mob despotism any impediments?"285

      The Independent Chronicle, on the other hand, "congratulated the public on the final triumph of Republicanism, in the repeal of the late obnoxious judiciary law."286 The Republicans of Boston and Cambridge celebrated the event with discharges of artillery.

      Vans Murray reported to King that "the principle of … disorganizing … goes on with a destructive zeal. Internal Taxes – Judicial Sanctity – all are to be overset."287 Sedgwick was sure that no defense was left against "legislative usurpation."288 "The angels of destruction … are making haste," moaned Fisher Ames.289

      "The angels of destruction" lost no time in striking their next blow. On March 18, two weeks after the threat of the Washington Federalist that the Supreme Court would declare unconstitutional the Republican Repeal Act, a Senate committee was appointed to examine further the National Judiciary establishment and report a bill for any improvements considered necessary.290 Within a week the committee laid the measure before the Senate,291 and on April 8 it was passed292 without debate.

      When it reached the House, however, the Federalists had taken alarm. The Federalist Judiciary Act of 1801 had fixed the terms of the Supreme Court in December and June instead of February and August. This new bill, plainly an afterthought, abolished the June session of the Supreme Court, directed that, thereafter, that tribunal should convene but once each year, and fixed the second Monday of February as the time of this annual session.

      Thus did the Republicans plan to take away from the Supreme Court the opportunity to pass upon the repeal of the Federalist Judiciary Act of 1801 until the old and defective system of 1789, which it restored, was again in full operation. Meanwhile, the wrath of the new National judges, whom the repeal left without offices, would wear itself down, and they would accept the situation as an accomplished fact.293 John Marshall should have no early opportunity to overturn the Repeal Act, as the Republicans believed he would do if given the chance. Neither should he proceed further with the case of Marbury vs. Madison for many months to come.294

      Bayard moved that the bill should not go into effect until July 1, thus permitting the Supreme Court to hold its June session; but, said Nicholson, that was just what the Republicans intended to prevent. Was a June session of the Supreme Court "a source of alarm?" asked Bayard. "The effect of the present bill will be, to have no court for fourteen months… Are gentlemen afraid of the judges? Are they afraid that they will pronounce the repealing law void?"295

      Nicholson did not care whether the Supreme Court "pronounced the repealing law unconstitutional or not." The Republican postponement of the session for more than a year "does not arise from any design … to prevent the exercise of power by the judges." But what of the Federalists' solicitude for an early sitting of the court? "We have as good a right to suppose gentlemen on the other side are as anxious for a session in June, that this power may be exercised, as they have to suppose we wish to avoid it, to prevent the exercise."296

      Griswold could not credit the Republicans with so base a purpose: "I know that it has been said, out of doors, that this is the great object of the bill. I know there have been slanders of this kind; but they are too disgraceful to ascribe to this body. The slander cannot, ought not to be admitted." So Griswold hoped that Republicans would permit the Supreme Court to hold its summer session. He frankly avowed a wish for an early decision that the Repeal Act was void. "I think the speedier it [usurpation] is checked the better."297

      Bayard at last flatly charged the Republicans with the purpose of preventing the Supreme Court from holding the Repeal Act unconstitutional. "This act is not designed to amend the Judicial system," he asserted; "that is but pretense… It is to prevent that court from expressing their opinion upon the validity of the act lately passed … until the act has gone into full execution, and the excitement of the public mind is abated… Could a less motive induce gentlemen to agree to suspend the sessions of the Supreme Court for fourteen months?"298

      But neither the pleading nor the denunciation of the Federalists moved the Republicans. On Friday, April 23, 1802, the bill passed and the Supreme Court of the United States was practically abolished for fourteen months.299

      At that moment began the movement that finally developed into the plan for the secession of the New СКАЧАТЬ