Chapter M: CAMPBELL then rose and spoke as follows (5)

The learned advocates for the judge have talked highly of the independence of the judiciary, and have asked what inducements any judge could have to act as we have charged Judge Chase with acting. Are there then no inducements for a judge to swerve from his duty? Has he no feelings to gratify, and is it impossible for him to become a partisan? Does his character as a judge divest him of his ambition as a man? Is he so incorruptible that temptation cannot assail him? Look through the annals of other nations--read the history of England for the last forty years. Judicial independence has been for a long time as well secured there as here; and yet how many instances shall we find in that country of prosecutions in which the feelings of the Ministry had been engaged, and in which their influence over the judges has been too flagrant to be mistaken? In Ireland, miserable Ireland, a still more gloomy prospect presents itself. They, too, have boasted an independent judiciary; but an overruling influence has crumbled it into ruins. The demon of destruction has entered their courts of justice, and spread desolation over the land. Execution has followed execution, until the oppressed, degraded, and insulted nation has been made to tremble through every nerve, and to bleed at every pore. Let us then be warned by the fate of Ireland. In State prosecutions her judges look to the Castle; although they cannot be put down, they may be elevated. Some of our judges have been elevated to places of high political importance; splendid embassies have been given to them. I will not say that they were given or accepted with improper views; but they have been given, and surely they hold out inducement enough for a judge to bend to the ruling party. It is our duty to prevent party spirit from entering into our courts of justice. Let us nip the evil in the bud, or it may grow to an enormous tree, bearing destruction upon every branch. You have now an opportunity of doing it, and I trust you will not suffer it to escape you. I therefore hope that you will not only remove Judge Chase from the high office which he now fills, but that by your judgment you will for ever hereafter disqualify him from holding any office of profit or trust under the Government of the United States.

Mr. RODNEY.--Mr. President, and Gentlemen of the Senate: The present trial exhibits a spectacle truly solemn and impressive. A man who holds one of the highest judicial offices under the Government, who, from the period of the Revolution, has filled many of the most important public situations, and whose hairs have been bleached in the service of his country, is charged before this dignified tribunal, by the Representatives of the American people, with the commission of acts in violation of his duty as a judge, and of the laws and constitution of the land.

On one hand, the character of an aged and respectable individual, which may be dearer to him than the small remnant of his life, is involved in your decision; on the other, the most precious rights of free citizens, and the dearest interests of society.

The mind which could contemplate, unmoved, such a scene, cannot feel for the welfare of the people, or the honor of the nation, and must be equally insensible to the finer sympathies of life, and the practice of its charities and affections.

The public anxiety manifested by this deeply interesting trial must be evident to all--a trial of the first importance, because of the first impression--a trial not confined to a single act in the conduct of the accused, but embracing a variety of transactions at different periods of his life--a trial which departs from the ordinary mode of decision, whose novelty and magnitude have excited so much interest and attention that it seems to have superseded for the moment, not only every other grave object or pursuit, but every other fashionable amusement or dissipation.

The task of prosecuting is always very unpleasant, and to me extremely painful; but my rule has ever been not to suffer private considerations or personal feelings to stand in the way of a firm and independent discharge of public duty.

To this exalted tribunal I look with confidence for a display of that dignified impartiality, which will do credit to their elevated situation, and reflect honor on their country. You will raise yourselves, I am convinced, above the common level of human prejudices, personal or political, and will suffer no considerations but those which are perfectly correct to be blended with your inquiries or mingled with your decisions.

Party, it is true, is a spirit of so subtle a nature as to diffuse itself almost imperceptibly over the human mind; it frequently pervades the system without being felt, and sometimes warps the judgment when least suspected. Against the influence of this spirit I need scarcely caution the judges whom I have the honor to address. It cannot approach within the pale of this Court, or enter their hallowed walls.

I have marked, Mr. President, in the questions which you have so correctly put to the witnesses in the course of their examination, that singleness of eye, which looks to the discovery of truth alone, without reference to the party whose case it may affect; whilst your conduct in maintaining that order and decorum suitable to the solemnity of the occasion has exhibited an example worthy of imitation.

I have observed, with heartfelt pleasure and honest pride, the unwearied and impartial attention paid by the members of this Court during the progress of this momentous cause. To my mind it presages a decision worthy of themselves, and serviceable to their country, and is a sure pledge that their determination will be honest, upright, and independent.

If, after a fair and full inquiry into the facts, illustrated by the arguments for and against the accused, and a careful examination of the law, commented on by those whose duty it is to support the impeachment, and those who are opposed to it, the Senate shall be of opinion that the charges have not been substantiated, and pronounce a verdict of acquittal, believe me, sir, I, as a citizen faithful, obedient, and affectionate to the laws of my country, shall most cheerfully acquiesce in the decision. But I do confidently trust that it will not take place, on the principles or the precedent established in the case of Warren Hastings, the Governor of Bengal, that plunderer of India, that destroyer of the people of Asia, that devastator of the East, whose crimes were without number, and whose enormities exceeded calculation. What fields have been dyed, what streams have been tinged with the innocent blood of victims sacrificed on the altar of his avarice or his ambition! An obligation however solemn, a treaty however sacred, interposed but a weak and feeble barrier to the views of his personal or political aggrandizement. Even a zenana, the sacred retreat of women, holy and consecrated to the fairest work of the creation, by the religious customs of that country, has been violated whenever the silver and the gold, the jewels and the diamonds, were sufficient objects to attract his attention or gratify his rapacity.

The House of Representatives, so far from deserving blame, in my humble opinion, merit commendation for the reluctance with which they proceeded to accusation, and for the care, caution, and dignity which have marked their steps. I have frequently heard an unbecoming zeal reprobated in a prosecutor; but never before did I hear from the lips of a counsel for an offender, a complaint of delay and remissness in charging his client with guilt. What a striking contrast does their conduct furnish, compared with that of the defendant! They betrayed no thirst for prosecution, but an unwillingness to accuse; no eager appetite for conviction, but an anxious desire that impartial justice should take place between the public and an individual, whom irresistible evidence had compelled them to present before the highest judicial authority of the nation. Not, it is true, for the murder of despotic princes whose will was the law, and whose laws perhaps were as sanguinary as those of Draco; nor for the plunder of empires, swayed by an iron sceptre as oppressive as the dominion of Hastings. Far other crimes are laid to his charge. The defendant, a citizen of this free land, sworn to support our mild constitution and our equal laws, and bound by his oath of office to administer justice impartially, having a perfect knowledge of his duty, (for of ignorance the whole world will acquit him,) stands charged with plundering, in the holy habit of a judge, a jury of his country of their most sacred rights, and injured and insulted freemen of their constitutional privileges.

He was indeed providentially prevented from imbruing his hands in the blood of poor Fries, but he stands accused of shedding, with unfeeling severity, the life-blood of the constitution itself.

Such are the crimes for which he is arraigned at your bar, and which one of the gentlemen has been pleased to term petty offences. In the dark catalogue of criminal enormities, perhaps few are to be found of a deeper dye. If I were an advocate of the doctrines of constructive and cumulative treasons, of which the learned judge appears to have been a great admirer and a zealous supporter, I would say that he himself was guilty of judicial treason against the constitution of the country and majesty of the people.

The independence of the Judiciary, the political tocsin of the day, and the _alarm bell of the night_, has been rung through every change in our ears. They have played upon this chord until its vibrations produce no effect. The sound is rather calculated to stun us into an insensibility against real attacks, for the poor hobby has been literally rode to death. To the rational independence of the Judiciary, I am, and ever have been a firm and uniform friend. But I am no advocate for the inviolability of judges more than of kings. In this country I am afraid the doctrine has been carried to such an extravagant length, that the Judiciary may justly be considered like a spoiled child. They are here placed almost beyond the reach of the people, though not beyond the immediate power and influence of the Executive. I wish not to see them the slaves of any administration, but the faithful and impartial executors of justice. My desire is that the laws, like the providence of the Deity, should shed their protecting influence equally over all.

It will be allowed that the hopes of an individual are as powerful inducements to action as his fears. Whether the Executive can depress or exalt him, his influence is equally great. Whether he can punish his errors or reward his faults, his dominion is the same. We all know that an associate judge may sigh for promotion, and may be created a Chief Justice, whilst experience teaches us, that more than one Chief Justice has been appointed a Minister Plenipotentiary. These facts are staring us in the face, when we talk of judges being independent of the Government.

What has been the natural effect of such conduct? Have the judges stood aloof during the political tempests which have agitated the country--or have they united in the _Io triumphe_ which the votaries and idolaters of power have sung to those who were seated in the car of Government? Have they made no offerings at the shrine of party; have they not preached political sermons from the bench, in which they have joined chorus with the anonymous scribblers of the day and the infuriate instruments of faction? Let a recurrence to past events decide.

I wish to be understood as speaking on these topics in the abstract, and not with a view of imputing improper motives to those concerned in the arrangements which have taken place.

The people of the United States, on the other hand, have no offices of profit and emolument to bestow. They have no post immediately in their power to give, except a station in the House of Representatives, which a judge would not accept from their hands. But, let me ask, was there no vacancy in the gift of the Executive, to which the defendant could aspire, and to which his conduct might furnish him with a passport or a letter of introduction?

Some observations have been made on the independence of the judges in England. In that country they are removable by an address of both Houses of Parliament. By what a slight tenure, by what a slender thread, are their offices held! The voice, nay, the whisper, or the breath of the Minister for the time being, may remove them, and yet they have generally manifested a spirit of real independence, even in the season of alarm and terror, of which I fear our judges at a similar period cannot boast. But in that country, a seat on the bench is considered as a place of rest, and they look not beyond it. There the judges are not made Envoys Extraordinary or Ministers Plenipotentiary.

We ought not to be imposed upon by names in this country. Give any human being judicial power for life, and annex to the exercise of it the kingly maxim “that he can do no wrong,”--you may call him a judge or justice, no matter what is the appellation--and you transform him into a despot, regardless of all law but his own sovereign will and pleasure.

Suffer me at this place to notice the remarks of the learned counsel who spoke yesterday, (Mr. Harper,) with so much sensibility and feeling for his client, on the change of parties in popular governments, and the proscriptions, persecutions, and punishments, too frequently inflicted by those who are triumphant, on the fallen victims of their authority; when acts, innocent in themselves, because against no known law, have been converted into crimes to gratify the vindictive passions of the victorious against those whom the fortune of political war has placed within their power. No man can deprecate more sincerely than I do, such a state of things. To the situation of affairs in this country, I presume these remarks cannot have the most distant application. If they were made with reference to the present Administration, to the Executive or Legislative Departments of the Government, the allusion may, perhaps, have the light support of visionary imagination, but has no substantial foundation in reality. It may be fancy, but is not fact.

The illustrious Chief Magistrate of the Union[22] has furnished a precedent, by his liberal and enlightened conduct, of which the lamentable annals of mankind afford no example. Under his wise and his mild guidance, what auspicious beams of public sunshine have been diffused over the whole face of the country! until, to the discontented few, the language of the Latin poet might justly be applied--

“O fortunati nimium sua si bona norint.”

This enlightened policy has been adopted in conjunction with the luminous constellation of distinguished worthies, by whom he is surrounded; whose exalted character and talents add to the usefulness, the dignity, and splendor of his measures, and increase to an extent almost incalculable the general sum of the happiness of this great and independent nation.

Turning our eyes to those who have exercised the high and responsible functions of legislation, we find their acts equally deserving commendation. Their proceedings are calculated to excite at once the envy and the admiration of their opposers and the world. They breathe not the fell spirit of resentment and persecution. To their honor be it spoken, that, instead of enlarging the circle of offence, they have reduced the scale of criminality. They have abolished an odious, and, I believe, an unconstitutional sedition law, which had been executed with a rigor and severity perfectly congenial with the passionate policy which gave it birth. The decrees under it, if not written in the blood of the sufferers, were written in their tears. A more dreadful engine of persecution and oppression cannot well be conceived. With this instrument in their hands, they could have smote their enemies and shielded themselves. It would have been a sword and a buckler, but they disdained the idea.

Actuated by the best motives, with the honest view of purifying the fountain of justice, and restoring the characters of the American bench, they are now engaged in the unpleasant, but indispensable task of bringing to exemplary punishment a judge who has offended against the letter and the spirit of the constitution, and the well-known statutes of Congress; who has violated the bounden duties of his office, and that high legislative act, which, to the sanction of a law, added the solemnity and obligation of an oath.

In this important undertaking they are contending not for themselves, but for posterity; not for those in power, but those whom power has forsaken. Against all the wild theories of new-fangled opinions and the monstrous iniquity of exploded doctrines, they wish to teach a lesson of instruction to future judges that, when intoxicated by the spirit of party, they may recollect the scale of power may one day turn, and preserve the scales of justice equal.

It appears that Fries had been tried in the year 1799, before Judges Iredell and Peters, and convicted of the crime of high treason. His counsel afterwards moved for a new trial, on the ground that one of the jury had been prejudiced against him--that he had not in fact been an impartial juror in the case. The Court, consisting of the same judges, upon argument, ordered a new trial to be had. A new trial, according to the best authorities, is “a rehearing of the cause before another jury, but with as little prejudice to either party as if it had never been heard before.” In this light Judge Chase should have considered it. He ought to have gone to Pennsylvania with a mind totally unprejudiced, and viewed every circumstance of the case with the utmost impartiality. The very circumstance which produced the second trial ought to have put him sufficiently on his guard. When a new trial has been directed, to use the language of the respondent in his answer, “solely on the ground that one of the jury” (a single man out of twelve) “after he was summoned, but before he was sworn on the trial, had made some declarations unfavorable to the prisoner,” how ought an impartial judge to have felt and to have acted? Mr. Chase, let it be recollected, presided in a court composed of but two members. With this lesson before his eyes, we find the respondent forming an opinion in his closet on the law of treason, applicable to the case of poor Fries, and not satisfied with making up his own mind on this subject, he took care to bind the judgment of his associate, by obtaining his approbation of that opinion, which he reduced to writing for the purpose. This irregular and reprehensible measure was adopted before the hour of trial arrived, when the man whose life was at stake was to be heard on a subject that involved his existence. This bold step in the path to conviction, has been defended on plausible grounds, and by subtle refinements.

The respondent in his answer and the learned counsel in their defence, have endeavored to prove that this conduct was not only right, but perfectly proper and correct. Among the various pretexts eagerly laid hold of to justify this novel procedure, they urge as a reason for prejudging and despatching a capital case, the multiplicity of civil business pending in the same court! I will forbear to inquire into the facts on this point, though I believe there is not a spark of testimony to prove the allegation to its full extent, because, if the docket had been loaded with civil suits, it would form no excuse for hurrying through a criminal trial, on the issue of which the life of a fellow-citizen depended. That cause must be bad indeed that requires to be propped by such miserable expedients. When I first read this passage in the answer, it struck me with astonishment, and excited a burst of indignation which it is my duty to repress. “A multitude of civil business is depending, and therefore I must make up my mind conclusively on the law in a capital case, before the proper season arrives, without hearing a single word from the prisoner or his counsel in defence!” The learned judge certainly did not reflect on the effect of such an excuse, which instead of palliating his conduct, aggravates it. That he was in a great hurry, every part of his conduct proves. From the opinion, a copy of which is annexed to his answer, it would appear that he did not intend to make it public, at least until after the jury had been sworn and Fries was on his trial. In that we find these expressions: “The Court heard the indictment read on the arraignment of the prisoner some days past, _and just now on his trial_, and they attended to the overt acts stated in the indictment.”

This honorable Court will recollect that the whole current of the testimony proves, and the defendant in his answer admits, that he delivered the papers containing this _ex parte_ opinion before Fries’s trial commenced. Such was his eagerness to despatch the case, with a view, he says, of reaching expeditiously the civil list. As if gifted with the spirit of intuition and with an infallible judgment, he seems not to have proceeded on the principle of _castigatque auditque_, but to have improved even upon that model, considering it not necessary for him to hear arguments at any stage of a cause, for the purpose of forming a correct opinion. His counsel ask us whether it be a fault in a judge to have a profound knowledge of the law, which will enable him to decide promptly any question that may occur; and the respondent said, on Fries’s trial, that “he had an opinion in point of law as to every case which could be brought before the Court, or else he was not fit to sit there.” Yet, when Callender’s trial was progressing, we find this same judge, upon a common point of practice relative to a challenge to the jury, calling out for Coke on Littleton to be brought into court before he could make up his mind on the subject.

The aid of precedent has been called in to justify this wide departure from principle, and it is contended that the opinion was correct in point of law. My honorable friend (Mr. Randolph) has detected and exposed the fallacy of this species of justification. I will remark that a great and respectable character (Lord Mansfield) has observed, that he is a most unrighteous and wicked judge who decides without hearing both sides--even when he decides correctly--because his judgment is the effect of chance or accident, and not the result of a fair, full, and impartial investigation. Precedents, let me observe, do not make the law, they are merely evidence of it; nor is the law to be absolutely decided by precedents, _judicandum est legibus, non exemplis_. “If a judge conceives that a judgment given by a former court is erroneous, he ought not in conscience to give the like judgment, he being sworn to judge according to law,” says Lord Chief Justice Vaughan. But Judge Chase declares that, had he differed in opinion from former precedents, even in a capital case, he should have held himself bound by them. But here let me ask, what are those precedents to which he subscribes? It is not my intention to go at full length into the discussion of them, or comment at large on the law of treason. My object is, on this interesting occasion, to enter a solemn protest against doctrines which would entail on us all the constructive treasons of another country, and to assign in a few words the reasons of my opinion. I am not to be deterred from my duty by the assertion that no counsel of eminence would controvert the principles laid down by the respondent in his _ex parte_ opinion, more especially when characters of such high standing at the bar as Mr. Lewis and Mr. Dallas, have honorably and conscientiously opposed such monstrous doctrines. The Western insurrection in Pennsylvania was materially different from the momentary disturbances in the counties of Bucks and Northampton. The precedents which arose from one could not be applicable to the other, and the cases of Mitchell and Vigol, which have been cited, are readily distinguished from that of Fries.

In the first, the combination was formed and organized to seize _all_ records and papers, and to destroy _all_ offices, to expel _all_ officers in the whole survey. The insurgents traversed the country armed, seized papers, attacked offices, and drove officers out of the country.

They seized and imprisoned the marshal, who escaped and returned to Philadelphia by a circuitous route.

They assembled at Cooche’s fort, consulted on the attack upon Colonel Neville’s house, marched thither in military array, summoned him to surrender by a flag, set fire to his house, and destroyed his records. They assembled at Braddock’s field; deliberated on taking the garrison at Pittsburg; marched thither with that avowed object; but finding the garrison prepared for defence they filed off.

They assembled after the proclamation, and after the militia were ordered to march. They avowed an intention to resist. They compelled the Government to negotiate. The leaders, Bradford and Marshal, fled on the approach of the army, and the insurgents generally accepted the terms of amnesty, as in a case of treason. The army was, however, maintained for some time in the country.

In the last, the people were illiterate, ignorant of the laws and language. They did not conspire to act themselves, but to prevent _particular_ inferior officers from acting, by making the assessments in _particular_ townships.

They acted like a mob, in obstructing the progress of the officers by threats, hooting, &c., and once they took an officer’s tax list or papers, but immediately returned them.

They assembled expressly to release or rescue a _particular_ set of prisoners whom they called their neighbors.

They rescued the prisoners, and withdrew without injuring or attempting to injure the marshal, or the tax officers who were at Bethlehem.

They never suggested the idea of resisting the army. They dispersed as soon as the proclamation was issued, and they never met afterwards.

The distinctions are striking and obvious.

In the insurrection of 1794, the object was general; in the riot of 1799, it was particular.

In 1794, the insurgents _acted_ as assailants; the rioters of 1799 stood on the defensive, and only obstructed the officers in attempting to act.

In 1794, the design of attacking a fort and resisting the army was deliberately formed, and overt acts committed to carry it into effect; in 1799, the idea of attacking or resisting the military power of the Government never was suggested.

In 1794, the sedition act had not provided for combinations to impede the execution of a particular law. In 1799 that act was in existence.

In 1794, the outrage extended to the seizure of the marshal to prevent his executing any process. In 1799, it was confined to the release of a particular set of friends and neighbors.

The precedents, therefore, of Mitchell and Vigol, which have been so much relied upon, did not, I humbly submit, apply to the case of poor Fries. But the defendant has dwelt much on the opinion expressed by Judge Iredell, in his charge to the petit jury on the former trial of Fries, notwithstanding the verdict was set aside, which was given on that occasion, and Judge Chase should have proceeded on the second trial, as little prejudiced by any opinions on the former, as if such trial had never taken place. It appears from the testimony of Mr. Dallas, that so confident was he of the broad difference between the cases of 1794 and 1799, that in the first trial he did not advert to the former, little suspecting that they would be considered as precedents for the latter. When he found, by the charge of Judge Iredell, that he did unexpectedly rely upon them, his intention was, in the second trial, to direct his arguments to the manifest distinctions between them. In this, however, he was disappointed by the arbitrary conduct of the defendant. Under these circumstances, can this case be considered binding and obligatory; or, is a single precedent to make the law, and absolutely prevent counsel from controverting it?

The case of Fries was succeeded by that of Callender. There is seldom one act of crying injustice without being followed by another. It is the misfortune, if not the fault, of the respondent, that his conduct compels us to unfold more than one solitary case, in which he grossly violated his duty and the laws of the land.

Callender had written a book, which I never saw until since the commencement of this trial--a wretched performance, which ought never to have excited in the breasts of the honest supporters of the late Administration any passion but contempt. They should have applied to it the memorable declaration of one who once figured in political life, “a wise and virtuous Administration is not to be battered down by mere paper shot.” The respondent, it appears, was furnished by one of his present counsel, (Mr. Martin,) when in the act of setting off for the district of Virginia, with a copy of this formidable work, which threatened destruction, in his opinion, to the Federal fabric. The book was ready scored to his hands, so that, with a single glance, he might discover the fatal passages. With this volume for a “_vade mecum_, or travelling companion,” he proceeded to Richmond to hold a circuit court. Soon after his arrival a presentment was made and an indictment found against Callender. The miserable object of persecution was hunted up and down the country. At length he was discovered by the marshal and brought into court. To the indictment he pleaded not guilty, and able and eminent counsel appeared to defend him.

Callender not being prepared with the testimony necessary to substantiate his defence, an affidavit was filed in due form, which stated ample grounds to postpone the trial of the cause, and upon which the Court ought certainly to have granted a continuance.

What are the objections raised against the motion to postpone, founded on this affidavit, and the reasons urged in support of the respondent’s refusal to put off the trial? They are truly singular. One is a refined technical objection to the form of the affidavit, because it does not state in strict legal language that Callender expected to be able to procure at a future time the attendance of the witnesses. But he states facts which prove on the face of them, that by postponing the trial he could obtain the benefit of their testimony, for he mentions the places of their residence, all of them within the United States. I say the case is stronger than if, _secundum formam_, he had sworn that he could procure their attendance. When he tells where they lived, the Court must have been satisfied on this point. However, the respondent assigns a curious reason to be sure, for his conduct. If the witnesses who were absent were actually before the Court, and were to prove all that Callender had stated or expected, it would riot have justified all the libellous passages that had been selected from the book and thrown into the indictment. How was Judge Chase to know but that Callender had testimony as to those points on which his absent witnesses would not have deposed?

The respondent, it seems, was willing to postpone it for a particular period, provided he would be present at the trial. Nay, he would go all the way to Delaware, and return again to accomplish an object he seems to have had so much at heart. In my humble opinion this part of the Judge’s conduct proves stronger than almost any other of his acts, the motives which influenced him. If I were to select any one circumstance to prove that his intentions were improper, I would lay my hand on this. “I will not postpone this important trial until the next term, because, according to the arrangement, I shall not then be on this bench, but I will agree to delay it for a shorter period, and travel three or four hundred miles in order to accommodate Mr. Callender with my presence on the trial.” Did any lawyer ever hear of such conduct? Did they ever hear of a court adjourning to a particular time, to try a single solitary case of a common misdemeanor?

I do respectfully submit, for the reasons assigned, that the conduct of the learned judge, in refusing to postpone the trial of Callender, was a most manifest violation of the principles of law, and was attended with such circumstances as render it highly improbable that it proceeded from a mere error in judgment.

From Virginia, flushed with success and elated with his triumph over Callender, the respondent hastened to Delaware. The night preceding the day on which the respondent was to hold the court, he lodged at the village of Christiana, about five miles distant from the court-house. From this place he rode into Newcastle the next morning with Dr. William McMechin, who was summoned as a grand juror to the court, and it is in evidence, was actually sworn on the panel. This is the very man, who, it is represented, gave the respondent the information relative to the seditious printer. As a grand juror it was his duty to communicate to his fellows any offences against the laws of the land which had come to his knowledge, and it was the duty of the grand jury to present every criminal act punishable by the laws of the United States. We are bound to pronounce that Mr. McMechin put the rest of the grand jury, for he was sworn so to do, in complete possession of all the information which he communicated to the respondent. With these circumstances, the respondent was perfectly well acquainted. He saw with his own eyes the very man impanelled on the inquest who had opened the budget to him, and knew it was his duty to unfold the intelligence to his brethren. The respondent proceeds to deliver an appropriate charge to the jury--a charge free from all those blemishes which stain a subsequent performance of the same kind. He presented to their view in chaste and eloquent language the proper subjects for their inquiry. In my humble opinion it may have been equalled but never excelled. I considered it, according to my poor judgment at the time, a perfect model; the most finished piece in style and substance that I ever heard addressed to a grand jury. Had he stopped here he would have been an object of praise rather than complaint. Had he been contented with discharging his official duty, he would have been entitled to our thanks, rather than merited an accusation.

The grand jury retire to their chamber, and after some time return to the box. To the credit of the then marshal of the Delaware district, I must observe, that he had manifested on that occasion, (as I know him uniformly to have done, even when the storm of party raged with the greatest violence,) in the selection of his jurors, an independence becoming the responsible station which he filled. They were not men of pliant tempers, nor were they carefully culled from the ruling sect, but chosen without respect to party, from the most respectable of both sides. It gives me great pleasure to speak of such conduct, because I wish to hold it up as an example. The grand jury were asked by the clerk in the usual form, “Have you any bills or presentments to make?” Their foreman respectfully answered they “had not.” On this, the judge could no longer bridle his temper. He had anticipated perhaps a treat from the prosecution of an obnoxious printer, and expected to regale his palate with a favorite dish. Provoked by disappointment, his passion burst into a flame, and he condescended to stoop from his bench, for the purpose of seizing on his prey. It was at this period he betrayed emotions so highly reprehensible, and so very unsuitable to the dignity of his situation. In a tone, well adapted to the exceptionable language, he observed to the grand inquest, “What! no bills or presentments?” This was matter of astonishment to him, and he proceeded to make the observations so correctly described by Mr. Read, the District Attorney of Delaware, a gentleman of irreproachable life and manners, whose character is not only unimpeached but unimpeachable, and Mr. Lea, one of the grand jury themselves, to whom part of the observations were addressed, a merchant of established reputation, and as a man respected by all who are acquainted with him. Sir, after the observations I have made on positive and negative testimony, I will not stop to demonstrate that every thing stated by Mr. Read and Mr. Lea was said, though not recollected by some other witnesses. I will barely mention that all the extra-judicial remarks of the respondent were addressed to the grand jury or to the district attorney. They must, therefore, naturally be presumed to have paid the strictest and closest attention to all that fell from the learned judge, and we have produced one of the grand inquest themselves, and the district attorney, to prove the language he used. I feel confident, under these circumstances, that implicit credit will be given to them. I am also convinced that the statement made by the respondent is scarcely more favorable to his cause. The grand jury repeat, to the interrogatory put to them by the respondent, the answer which they gave to the previous question of the clerk, and request additionally that they may be discharged, as many of them were farmers, and it was hay harvest, a very busy season with them. But no matter for that, the business of the persecution, for I will not say prosecution, must go on if possible. The judge would not discharge the grand jury on the first day, agreeably to general practice, as proved by Judge Bedford, though pressed so to do. He proceeds to give them information of the seditious temper which had manifested itself in the State, and particularly in Newcastle County: a county, which, suffer me to say, is well known from its old and unshaken patriotism from the Revolution to the present day. But he did not stop here; he proceeds to mention a seditious printer, point out the place where he lived, and the borough of Wilmington, justly celebrated for its uniform attachment to the cause of republicanism, and, according to his own answer, to specify the title of his paper, and just as his name was escaping from his lips, a returning sense of propriety checked his speech. Sensible how deeply he had committed himself already, he paused for reflection. But he had gone too far to effect a safe and honorable retreat. He calls on the district attorney to know if a file of the papers cannot be had. Some officious person offers to procure them, and the respondent directs the district attorney to examine them and lay them before the grand jury, who are ordered to attend the next morning. They do accordingly attend, the file of the papers is laid before them and examined. Behold, after all his exertions, the respondent had his labor for his pains; after all this noise and bustle _montes parturiunt_, and not even _ridiculus mus nascitur_. The grand jury return once more to the box without any bills or presentments, and the learned judge with admirable address covers his defeat.

The conduct of the learned judge at the circuit court in Maryland, furnishes, I consider, one of the strongest articles of impeachment. I had intended to have dilated very much at length on this charge, but the fatigue of yesterday has really indisposed me, and I have already trespassed too much on your time.

Every member of this Court must have been sensible of the impropriety of the respondent’s conduct on that occasion. Every reflecting man must be decidedly opposed to the idea of blending political discussion with the legal observations which ought to proceed from the bench. A party harangue little comports with the temperate and learned charges to be delivered by the president of a court. The character of an electioneering partisan, whose rostrum is a stump, or whose stage is the head of a hogshead, is utterly inconsistent and incompatible with that of a grave and upright judge. The duty of a judge is to expound the laws, and not to exercise the office of a censor over them, and much less to disgrace himself by reprobating them in a manner calculated to excite groundless alarm and apprehensions in the minds of the people, and to alienate their affections from the Government. Every man in his individual capacity possesses the undoubted right to advocate the political principles which he believes most beneficial to his country. The respondent as an individual is entitled to this privilege in common with his fellow-citizens, and to the free exercise of his splendid talents in such a case. But does this justify him as a judge in his judicial character, and from the judgment seat, to preach political sermons, and impose his private dogmas on the people, under the garb of administering the laws? Sophistry may for a moment confound two things perfectly distinct in their nature and effect, but the mist vanishes before the light of argument.

It will be conceded that there yet exist State jealousies against the General Government, the acts of which are closely watched and scrutinized. When the Constitution of the United States was framed, it was the legitimate offspring of a liberal spirit of accommodation, which reconciled jarring interests, _discordia semina rerum_. It requires the patriotic exertion of every good man to preserve and to promote a reciprocal cordiality between the General and State Governments. The officers particularly of each should manifest a respect and reverence which would inspire at once confidence and attachment. What language can express the criminality of the respondent, when from the bench of the United States he undertook to thunder anathemas against the act of the Legislature of an individual State? Was this a part of his duty, or was it not? Can there be a doubt, sir, but that it was a gross violation of his duty, and that the respondent well knew it at the time? Yet such were his unbridled passions and his uncontrolled prejudices, that, regardless of the station which he held, and the dignified post which he occupied, he did not hesitate to commit the character of the United States by conduct which must have irritated the audience against the government of Maryland and its officers. If ever a _mobocracy_ take place in this country, it will be brought about by such instruments and such conduct. Let those clothed with the laws become the violators of them, let the judges of the United States issue fulminations against the measures of individual States, and the judges of the different States retaliate, by declaiming against the acts of the General Government, and the consequences are easily foreseen.

When a poor miserable object like Callender, without character and without influence, censures the measures of our Administration, or reprobates an unconstitutional law, the respondent considered him guilty of a crime and deserving of punishment. But a man elevated to the bench may declaim in the strongest language against any measure or law of the United States, or of an individual State with perfect impunity! Recollect, sir, that if the defendant be justified in reprobating a single law of the United States, he has the right to reprobate them all indiscriminately. It is without question the duty of a judge to inculcate a respect and a reverence for the laws of the land. But, sir, the respondent, so far as he was able, has endeavored to excite the indignation of the people against them, and to terrify them into an opposition to measures which he has chosen from the bench to denounce, by the dread of a _mobocracy_ and other alarming stories unworthy the columns of a common newspaper, and scarcely equalled since the days of the Rye House, and of Titus Oates.

WEDNESDAY, February 27.

Mr. RANDOLPH.--Mr. President: The course which has been pursued by my learned colleagues and right excellent friends leaves but a barren field in which to glean after them. I shall, therefore, present you with the most condensed view that I can take of the subject, endeavoring, as far as possible, to avoid the ground which has been already trodden; and should I fail in this attempt, I hope to be pardoned, as having been absent during a great part of this discussion. Very far indeed is it from my intention, by tiresome repetitions, yet more to weary the patience of the Court, and prolong that decision which is anxiously awaited by all. I was not present when the defence was opened, in a style so honorable to himself, by the junior counsel of the respondent, (Mr. Hopkinson.) I was then ill abed. I regret the loss of the very able argument which he is said to have urged against the first article. God forbid that the time shall ever come with me when merit shall be disparaged because found in an adversary. Report speaks fairly of the gentleman’s performance, and I am willing to credit her to the utmost extent.

Suffer me to say a few words on the general doctrine of impeachment, on which the wildest opinions have been advanced--unsupported by the constitution, inconsistent with reason, and at war with each other. It has been contended that an offence, to be impeachable, must be indictable. For what then I pray you was it that this provision of impeachment found its way into the constitution? Could it not have said, at once, that any civil officer of the United States, convicted on an indictment, should (_ipso facto_) be removed from office? This would be coming at the thing by a short and obvious way. If the constitution did not contemplate a distinction between an impeachable and an indictable offence, whence this cumbrous and expensive process, which has cost us so much labor, and so much anxiety to the nation? Whence this idle parade, this wanton waste of time and treasure, when the ready intervention of a court and jury alone was wanting to rectify the evil? In addition to the instances adduced by my right worthy friend, (Mr. Nicholson,) who first addressed the Court yesterday, permit me to cite a few others by way of illustration. The President of the United States has a qualified negative on all bills passed by the two Houses of Congress, that he may arrest the passage of a law framed in a moment of legislative delirium. Let us suppose it exercised, indiscriminately, on every act presented for his acceptance. This surely would be an abuse of his constitutional power, richly deserving impeachment; and yet no man will pretend to say it is an indictable offence. The President is authorized by the constitution to return any bill presented for his approbation, not exceeding ten days, Sundays excepted, within which period he may return it to the House wherein it originated, stating his reasons for disapproving it. Now let us suppose that, at a session like the present, which must necessarily terminate on the third of March, (and that day falls this year on a Sunday,) the President should keep back until the last hour of an expiring Congress, every bill offered to him for signature during the ten preceding days, (and these are always the greater part of the laws passed at any session of the Legislature,) and should then return them, stating his objections, whether good or bad is altogether immaterial. It is true that a vote of two-thirds of each branch may enact a law in despite of Executive opposition; but, in the case I have stated, it would be physically impossible for Congress to exercise its constitutional power. Indeed, over the bills presented to the President within nine days preceding its dissolution, the Legislature might be deprived of even the shadow of control, since the Executive is not bound to make any return of them whatever. Now, I ask whether such misconduct in the President be an indictable offence? And yet is there a man who hears me who will deny that it would be a flagrant abuse, under pretence of exercise of his constitutional authority, for which he ought to be impeached, removed, and disqualified? Sir, this doctrine, that impeachable and indictable are convertible terms, is almost too absurd for argument. Nothing but the high authority by which it is urged, and the dignified theatre where it is advanced, could induce me to treat it seriously. Strip it of technical jargon, and what is it but a monstrous pretension that the officers of Government, so long as they steer clear of your penal statutes--so long as they keep without the letter of the law--may, to the whole length of the tether of the constitution, abuse that power, which they are bound to exercise with a sound discretion, and under a high responsibility for the general good?

Mr. President, through every stage of this transaction you perceive every symptom of guilt--trepidation, remorse, and self-abasement. Look at the consultation at Rawle’s, who was followed home by the judges as soon as the Court rose. Recollect the conversation which ensued, and the conduct of the Court on the following day, when the respondent is said to have atoned for his misbehavior; although, in the same breath, you are told there was no offence to expiate. Do you recognize in that procedure an honorable and manly acknowledgment of unintentional error, which, from a sense of justice, the respondent was anxious to rectify? Or do you behold the sullen perverseness of guilt, half ashamed to confess its offences, yet trembling at their consequences?--now soothing, now threatening its adversary--every characteristic of conscious crime? Sir, I blush for the picture which the gentleman has drawn of his client; and I ask you, Mr. President, if such a character is fit to preside in a court of justice?--a man whose violent temper and arbitrary disposition perpetually drives him into acts of tyranny and usurpation, from which, when vigorously opposed, he must disgracefully recede; equally ready to take an untenable position, or meanly to abandon it. To-day, haughty, violent, imperious; to-morrow, humble, penitent, and submissive; prostrating the dignity of his awful function at the feet of an advocate, over whom, but the day before, he had attempted to domineer. Is this a character to dispense law and justice to this nation? No, sir! It demands men of far different stamp--firm, indeed, but temperate; mild, though unyielding; neither a blustering bravo, nor a timid poltroon. I speak not of private character; with it I have nothing to do. It is the official conduct only that concerns me. I have no hesitation in saying that such men are not fit to preside in your judiciary; and that the greatest abilities, when joined to such tempers, serve but still more to disqualify their possessors.