and uniform course, in that he had discharged
his duty, conscientiously and impartially—that he
had cultivated his mind and inproved his know-
ledge, and that he had been faithful to his station
in all times and in all places. With such evidences
of the uplightness of his character, he would
fear no opposition. He would command the respect
and veneration of his countrymen. Sir, I
repeat, that the doctrine which, applies to the
independence of the judiciary of England, does
not apply here. With all the reverence we have
for the distinguished men who framed the Constitution
of Maryland, and the Constitution of the
United States, we must reflect upon the times
when this doctrine was engrafted upon the institutions
of the nation and the State. We must all
see that they are not now consistent with the pro-
gressive spirit of the age—that progressive spirit
of enlightened education and elevated patriotism.
It is not necessary for me to stop here and to
examine into the authority of the different constitutions
—the authority of Judge Story, or the
authority of Chancellor Kent, or other eminent
and profound writers on the subject. But, the
gentleman, (Mr. C ,) had found it necessary, in
order to escape from the powerful authority
of one of the most distinguished and learned men
in the country, to appeal to a matter of history,
to show why he had changed his opinions upon
this great question. Mr. Jefferson, he said, in
his early days, was opposed to the limitation of
tenure of the judges; but he changed his opinion
in his after life on the subject.
The gentleman told the Convention that
Mr. Adams, in a conversation he had had with
him, assigned to him the reasons why Mr. Jef-
ferson changed his opinions. And, although the
gentleman said he would not ascribe to Mr. Jef-
ferson, that his purpose in the prosecution of
Judge Chase, was to remove all the Federal
Judges, although he would not charge against
him, that he afterwards abandoned his prosecu-
tion and procured his acquittal in consequence of
his jealousy of Mr. Randolph, yet he would state
the facts and leave them to the Convention.
He (Mr. S.) was amused when he heard that
matter of history. It was a charge made by Mr.
Adams against Mr. Jefferson. That Mr. Jefferson
had gotten up the prosecution against Judge
Chase. That it was feeler. If successful, then
all the other federal judges were to be prosecuted.
But Mr. Randolph stood in the way. He was
omnipotent in the lower house of Congress, and
it was his ambition to display his strength in the
Senate. Of this Mr. Jefferson was afraid. It
might interfere with Mr. Madison. To avoid
this, he, Mr. Jefferson, had to abandon his
grounds, and induced his friends to vote for Mr.
Chase's acquittal.
Mr. President, this is the charge, on the au-
thority of Mr Adams, gravely repeated on this
floor, to take from the weight of Mr. Jefferson's
opinion, in favor of the limitation of the tenure
of the office of judge.
When the honorable member referred to this
matter of history as coming from Mr. Adams,
I knew that it was untrue, and when as evidence
of its truth, Mr Adams referred to the fact that
62 |
Mr. Giles and others of the friends of Mr. Jeffer-
son voted for the acquittal of Mr. Chase, I sent
for the record of the trial. It will show that the
charge is unfounded. That on the. contrary, his
friends voted for the conviction of Mr. Chase.
It is true, that on some of the articles of impeach-
ment, they voted for his acquittal, but on others
they voted for his conviction, and he would have
been convicted, but for want of the constitutional
vote of two-thirds of the Senate. A majority of
the Senate did declare him guilty on sundry of
the specifications, and among those who declared
him guilty, were Mr. Giles and others of Mr.
Jefferson's strongest and nearest friends.
Mr. CHAMBERS asked leave to correct the state-
ment of the gentleman. He did not mean to say
that all the friends of Mr. Jefferson voted on
every distinct charge in favor of Judge Chase's
acquittal, but a reference to the record would
show that they did not uniformly vote for convic-
tion, but on the contrary, while some voted one
way on some of the charges, and another way on
other charges, other equally warm friends of Mr.
Jefferson voted in opposite directions. Amongst
other names be would find those, of Mr. Giles
and Mr. Moore of Virginia General Smith and
Governor Wright of Maryland, the Senators
from Georgia and Tennessee, and others who
were the ardent supporters of Mr. Jefferson,
whose votes were cast on different sides on differ-
ent items of charge, and the result was a failure
to obtain on any one charge, a sufficient number
to sustain the prosecution.
Mr. SPENCER, in continuation, said, Sir, I will
sustain my assertion. But in doing so, I will not
refer to all the articles of impeachment, but will
content myself by referring to those on which a
majority voted, that Judge Chase, was guilty. On
the third article eighteen voted guilty, sixteen not
guilty; on the fourth article eighteen voted guil-
ty, sixteen not guilty; on the eighth article nine-
teen voted guilty, fifteen not guilty. These facts,
wilt appear, by reference to Chase's trial, pages
487,488, and 492, and that upon the three articles
of specification, the majority of the Senate voted
for his conviction, of which majority were Mr.
Giles and others, of the particular friends of Mr.
Jefferson, and the only ground upon which the
prosecution failed was, there were not two-thirds
of the Senate who voted for his conviction.
Then, the allegation made by the gentleman on
the authority of Mr. Adams was untrue. It was
not the fact, that Mr. Jefferson was guilty of the
gross charge imputed to him, and that he then
turned from his course, and played falsely, to ef-
fect the acquittal of Judge Chase.
The point of the gentleman's argument could
not avail, in assigning prejudices to Mr. Jefferson,
as his inducement in advocating a limitation
of the life tenure of judges. The learned gen-
tleman, this morning, in order to drive us from
this limitation of tenure of the judges, has cited
the Revolution in France, and has referred to the
reign of terror, during the administration of Louis
XVI.; and he depicted the power and influence
of Robespierre at that eventful period. This
argument proved nothing.
Who were the judges of France at that time? |
