Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856.

DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 75 MAY, 1824.] Supreme Court. [H. OF R. State law, was a party-because the authority In reference to the argument respecting a of the State was involved in its laws. He jury, he observed, that the want of a verdict, stated the improbability that all the seven when all did not agree, was not owing to the judges should, in each case, attend; and, if one mere declaration of law, but to the reason of the judge should be involved in the question, five case, on which the law was founded. He only would be left. If this resolution passed, viewed the amendment of the gentleman from not even four out of these five, could decide. Massachusetts as worse than nothing in the He referred to the late case of the steamboat case, and he concluded by expressing an earnest monopoly. In that case one judge was absent, hope that it would not be adopted. and if it had happened, as it might, that another The debate was farther continued by Mr. was indisposed, or interested in the question, BUICKREn, who spoke in opposition to the so as to leave a court of five judges only, four amendment; when, on motion of Mr. METout of the five would not have been competent CALFS, the committee rose and had leave to sit to pronounce a decision, if the provision of Mr. again. LETrnER's resolution had been law. It was a fair presumption, that State judges would lean MONDAY, May 17. toward the authority of their own State. A Beaumarchais Claim —T otion to Consider it in mere majority of those judges could decide the Negotiations between Prance and the against the United States, but now, more than United States. a majority was to be required to decide against a State. This was unequal. The very case of IMr. TocER, of Virginia, moved the following the bankrupt laws, quoted by gentlemen, fur- resolution, which he supported by a short nished a strong instance. He protested against speech: a greater number being required to decide a "Resolved, That the petition of Eugenie Amelie cause one way than the other. He passed a Beaumarchais de la Rue, be referred to the Presieulogy on the Supreme Court as a tribunal. dent of the United States; that he be requested to Its whole weight with the community rested cause the same to be considered in the pending on the strength of the reasons it brought for negotiations with the French Government, relating to the claims of American citizens, for property its decisions. He adverted to the encomium illegally seized and confiscated; and if found to be pronounced on a great judge in New York, just, then, and in that case, to be allowed in the (Chlancellor Ient,) and subscribed to it with final adjustment of the aforesaid claims." the most entire assent, and he quoted from an introductory lecture lately delivered by that The House refused now to consider this esojurist, a very decided testimony to the distinguished character of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court. Mr. CLAY replied-and while he subscribed IMr. WEBSTER, from the Committee on the to a very high opinion of the Supreme Court, Judiciary, reported a bill to alter the time he could not acknowledge that the moment a of holding the sessions of the Supreme man was appointed a member of that court, he Court. became exalted above his whole species in in- Mr. METCALE offered the following amendtellect and virtue. He spoke of their power ment to the bill: practically to make the constitution, by giving, "Be itfurther enacted, That, in any case now or authoritatively, their interpretation of it. He hereafter depending in the Supreme Court, in which warned the country of the consolidating infiu- shall be drawn into question the validity of any ence of this power, and maintained the neces- part of the constitution of a State, or of any part sity of guarding the State tribunals. The Su- of an act passed by the Legislature of a State, unpreme Court was virtually an umpire between less two-thirds of the whole number of justices comthe General Government and the States —its posing the said court -shall concur in pronouncing appointment was by one of these two parties, such part of the said constitution or act to be inand its bias might be expected to be towards valid, it shall not be held or deemed invalid." that party on which every member of the tri- Mr. METCALFE, of KIentucky, addressed the bunal was dependent. Chair as follows: On the subject of the attendance of judges, Mr. Speaker-It is an indispensable duty, he had attended sixteen or seventeen terms, and which I owe not only to the Legislature of had never witnessed more than two, at the Kentucky, but particularly. to those whom I most three, where a full court was not present. have the honor immediately to represent, that In the steamboat case, he asked whether, had I should, on the present occasion, exercise one four Supreme Court judges decided against of the privileges properly pertaining to the three, the opinion of the Supreme Court of Representatives of a free people-a privilege New York; of Judge Kent, (than whom there which I but seldom claim, but which, I am was not more, at the utmost, than one greater persuaded, will be liberally and generously jurist on the bench of the Supreme Court,) and accorded to me, provided I do not abuse it, by of the Court of Errors of that State, added to the enlightened patriotism and magnanimity the opinion of three judges of the Supreme of the body over whose deliberations you Court, ought not to outweigh the opinions of preside. four Supreme Court judges. In looking around me, however, I behold an

Pages

About this Item

Title: Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856.
Author: United States. Congress.
Canvas: Page 75
Publication: New York, [etc.]: D. Appleton and company [etc.]; 1857-61.
Subject terms: United States -- Politics and government

Technical Details

Collection: Making of America Books
Link to this Item: https://name.umdl.umich.edu/ahj4053.0008.001
Link to this scan: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/ahj4053.0008.001/77

Rights and Permissions

These pages may be freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please go to http://www.umdl.umich.edu/ for more information.

IIIF

Manifest: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/api/manifest/moa:ahj4053.0008.001

Cite this Item

Full citation: "Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856." In the digital collection Making of America Books. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/ahj4053.0008.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 21, 2025.

Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856.

Annotations Tools

Actions

About this Item

Technical Details

Rights and Permissions

Related Links

IIIF

Cite this Item