22 pie, tliat they have the power to select what means they please, in order to carry into execution a specific power, and all the limitations—all the restraints which the grant of delegated powers impose, are broken down and subverted forever. Sir, I must be permitted to say, that I consider this doctrine not only false, but dangerous to liberty. The exercise of a discretionary power, in the selection of means, must necessarily be limited to such means as are strictly proper; and no means that are incompatible with the principles upon which our Government is founded, can hoproper, however convenient they may be. A chartered monopoly is not—cannot be & proper mean to carry into effect any of the ends of a government based on the principles of political equality. Would you consider the exercise of exclusive political privileges as an appropriate means to promote the principle of equal political rights ? The idea is absurd upon the very face of it. Mr. Chairman, I would not wantonly assail the reputation of the judiciary. I trust that ! am capable of fairly and honestly appreciating the character of that enlightened and honorable tribunal. But however highly I may esteem them for purity of purpose and integrity of character, I cannot,'with the evidence before me, regard them as unerring m judgment: and I trust that the day is far distant when they will be recognised by Congress, or the American people, as a body of wfallibles. Sir, I believe that I am justified in saying, that the circumstances which surround and necessarily operate upon the American judiciary, are unpropitious to liberty; the nature of their office, the tenure by which it is held, and the fact of their non-accountability to the people, must—on the known principles of human nature—■ have a tendency to render them covetous of power, arbitrary and despotic. Nor is this all. Indoctrinated from their youth, in the principles and prejudices of English jurists; educated in English books; ever consulting English authorities ; constantly familiar with monarchical doctrines ; in a word, ah the laws of mental association, under which their intellects are reared and fashioned, are inimical to that broad based and high toned free-^ dom which the American people delight to cherish. Nor will the truth of this position be doubted or denied, by those who are familiar with the history of the past; who have studied the springs of human action ; reflected upon the nature of human power: and observed its constant proneness to enlarge, or overleap its boundaries. But why appeal to hypotheses, when I can so readily summon facts to my aid ? The history of the Supreme Court is rife with testimony directly to the point. By a careful examination and analysis of its decisions, it will be found, that they have, in most instances, leaned to the side of federal power; overlooked the rights of the citizen and of the States ; and evinced a strong and uniform bias for a consolidated Government. The alien and sedition laws—notoriously unconstitutional, and so pronounced by Mr. Jefferson and the American people— received the sanction of that court. The sedition, or “gag law,” made it an offence, punishable by indictment, to publish any thing which even had a tendency to bring into disrepute the officers of the Government • and many worthy and patriotic citizens, were, in pursuance of that nefarious law, incarcerated for daring to complain of the oppressions of their rulers. And this law, unconstitutional as it was, and .subversive of the rights of the citizens^and of the principles of our Government as it was, received the judicial sanction of the Supreme Court. Sir, I will hazard the declaration, and without the fear of contradiction, that, if all the principles which have received the sanction of the judiciary, were now in full force arid operation,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=