[240] _Ib._ 609.
[241] _Ib._ 611.
[242] _Ib._ 614.
[243] _Annals_, 7th Cong. 1st Sess. 615.
[244] Bayard"s summary of the shortcomings of the Ellsworth Act of 1789 and the excellence of the Judiciary Act of 1801 (_Annals_, 7th Cong. 1st Sess. 616-27) was the best made at that time or since.
[245] _Ib._ 632.
[246] See _infra_, chap. IV.
[247] Bayard pointed out that Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, whose "zeal and industry" decided the Presidential vote of his State, had been appointed Minister to Spain; that Claiborne of Tennessee held the vote of that State and cast it for Jefferson, and that Jefferson had conferred upon him "the high degree of Governor of the Mississippi Territory"; that Mr. Linn of New Jersey, upon whom both parties depended, finally cast his deciding vote in favor of Jefferson and "Mr.
Linn has since had the profitable office of supervisor of his district conferred upon him"; and that Mr. Lyon of Vermont neutralized the vote of his State, but since "his character was low ... Mr. Lyon"s son has been handsomely provided for in one of the Executive offices."
(_Annals_, 7th Cong. 1st Sess. 640.) Bayard named other men who had influenced the vote in the House and who had thereafter been rewarded by Jefferson.
[248] _Annals_, 7th Cong. 1st Sess. 645-48.
[249] _Ib._ 648-50. This was the second open expression in Congress of the spirit that led the New England Federalist leaders into their futile secession movement. (See _infra_, chaps. III and VI; also vol. IV, chap.
I, of this work.)
[250] Adams to Bayard, April 10, 1802; _Bayard Papers_: Donnan, 152.
[251] _Washington Federalist_, Feb. 20, 1802.
[252] Members of Congress wore their hats during the sessions of House and Senate until 1828. For a description of Randolph in the House, see Tyler, I, 291. Senator Plumer pictured him as "a pale, meagre, ghostly man," with "more popular and effective talents than any other member of his party." (Plumer to Emery, Plumer, 248.) See also Plumer"s letter to his son, Feb. 22, 1803, in which the New Hampshire Senator says that "Randolph goes to the House booted and spurred, with his whip in his hand, in imitation, it is said, of members of the British Parliament. He is a very slight man, but of the common stature." At a distance he looks young, but "upon a nearer approach you perceive his wrinkles and grey hairs. He is, I believe, about thirty." (_Ib._ 256.)
[253] The personal domination which John Randolph of Roanoke wielded over his party in Congress, until he broke with Jefferson (see _infra_, chaps. IV and X), is difficult to realize at the present day. Nothing like it has since been experienced, excepting only the merciless rule of Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania from 1862 until 1868. (See Woodburn: _Life of Thaddeus Stevens_, 247 _et seq._)
[254] _Washington Federalist_, Feb. 22, 1802.
[255] _Annals_, 7th Cong. 1st Sess. 650-51.
[256] _Annals_, 7th Cong. 1st Sess. 652.
[257] See _supra_, chap. I, 33; also _infra_, chap. IX, where Marshall, during the trial of Aaron Burr, actually issued such a subpoena.
Randolph was now denouncing the National court before which Cooper was tried, because it refused to grant the very writ for the issuing of which Marshall in a few years was so rancorously a.s.sailed by Jefferson personally, and by nearly all Republicans as a party.
[258] At the time Marshall issued the rule against Madison he apparently had no idea that Section 13 of the Ellsworth Judiciary Act was unconst.i.tutional. (See next chapter.)
[259] _Annals_, 7th Cong. 1st Sess. 662-63.
[260] The Federalist organ tried, by ridicule, to minimize Randolph"s really strong speech. "The speech of Mr. Randolph was a jumble of disconnected declamation.... He was horribly tiresome to the ear and disgusting to the taste." (_Washington Federalist_, Feb. 22, 1802.)
[261] _Annals_, 7th Cong. 1st Sess. 727.
[262] _Ib._ 737. See also vol. I, 452, of this work.
[263] _Annals_, 7th Cong. 1st Sess. 747-55.
[264] _Ib._ 759.
[265] _Ib._ 760.
[266] See _infra_, chap. X.
[267] _Annals_, 7th Cong. 1st Sess. 760.
[268] _Ib._ 760.
[269] See _infra_, chaps. III and VI.
[270] _Annals_, 7th Cong. 1st Sess. 767-94.
[271] _Ib._ 793.
[272] _Ib._ 805-06.
[273] In sour disgust Morris notes in his diary: "The House of Representatives have talked themselves out of self-respect, and at headquarters [White House] there is such an abandonment of manner and such a pruriency of conversation as would reduce even greatness to the level of vulgarity." (March 10, 1802, Morris, II, 421.)
[274] _Annals_, 7th Cong. 1st Sess. 904.
Dana"s statement is of first importance and should be carefully noted.
It was at the time the universally accepted view of the power of the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus. Neither Federalists nor Republicans had ever questioned the Const.i.tutional right of the Supreme Court to entertain original jurisdiction of mandamus proceedings in proper cases. Yet just this was what Marshall was so soon to deny in Marbury _vs._ Madison. (See _infra_, chap. III.)
[275] _Annals_, 7th Cong. 1st Sess. 920.
[276] _Ib._ 923-26.
[277] See _supra_, chap, I, 43.
[278] _Annals_, 7th Cong. 1st Sess. 983.
[279] Hildreth, V, 441.
[280] Bayard to Ba.s.sett, March 3, 1802, _Bayard Papers_: Donnan, 150; and see _Annals_, 7th Cong. 1st Sess. 982. One Republican, Dr. William Eustis of Boston, voted with the Federalists.
[281] _Hist. Last Sess. Cong. Which Commenced 7th Dec. 1801_ (taken from the _National Intelligencer_), 71.
[282] Tucker: _Life of Thomas Jefferson_, II, 114.
[283] _Washington Federalist_, March 3, 1802. Too much importance cannot be attached to this editorial. It undoubtedly expressed accurately the views of Federalist public men in the Capital, including Marshall, whose partisan views and feelings were intense. It should not be forgotten that his relations with this newspaper were believed to be intimate.
(See vol. II, 532, 541, of this work.)
[284] Plumer to Upham, March 1, 1802, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.
[285] March 12, 1802.