sense, can he hold that firm and steady hand his high fuctions require-No-if his nerves are of iron they must tremble in so perilous a situation. In England the complete independence of the judiciary has been considered and has been found the best and surest safeguard of true liberty, securing a government of known and uniform laws, acting alike upon every man. It has however been suggested by some of our newspaper politicians, perhaps from a higher source, that although this independent judiciary is very necessary in a monarchy to protect the people from the oppression of a court, yet that in our republican institution the same reasons for it do not exist-that it is indeed inconsistent with the nature of our gover ment that any part or branch of it should be independent of the people from whom the power is derived. And as the House of Representatives come most frequently from this great source of power, they claim the best right of knowing and expressing its will; and of course the right of a controuling influ. ence over the other branches. My doctrine is precisely the reverse of this. If I were called upon to declare whether the independence of judges were more essentially important in a monarchy or a republic, I should certainly say, in the latter. All governments require, in order to give them firm. ness, stability and character, some permanent principle, some settled establishment-The want of this is the great deficiency in republican instituti ons. Nothing can be relied upon-no faith can be given either at home or abroad to a people whose systems and operations and policy are constantly changing with popular opinion-If however the judiciary is stable and independent-if the rule of justice between men rests upon known and permanent principles, it gives a security and character to a country which is absolutely necessary in its intercourse with the world and in its own internal

concerns.

This independence is further requisite as a security from oppression. All history demonstrates from page to page, that tyranny and oppression have not been confined to despotisms, but have been freely exercised in republics both ancient and modern-With this difference; that in the latter the oppression has sprung from the impulse of some sudden gust of passion or prejudice, while in the former it is systematically planned and pursued as an ingredient and principle of the government. The people destroy not deliberately and will return to reflection and justice, if passion is not kept alive and excited by artful intrigue, but while the fit is on, their devastation and cruelty is more terrible and unbounded than the most monstrous tyrant. It is for their own benefit and to protect them from the violence of their own passions that it is essential to have some firm, unshaken, independent branch of government, able and willing to resist their phrenzy-If we have read of the death of a Seneca under the ferocity of a Nero ; we have read too of the murder of a Socrates under the delusion of a republic-An independent and firm judiciary protected and protecting by the laws would have snatched the one from the fury of a despot and preserved the other from the madness of a people.

I have considered these observations on the necessary independence of the judiciary applicable and important to the case before this honorable Court, to repel the wild idea that a judge may be impeached and removed from office although he has violated no law of the country, but merely on the vague and changing opinions of right and wrongpropriety and impropriety of demeanour. For if this is to be the tenure on which a Judge holds his office and character; if by such a standard his judicial conduct is to be adjudged criminal or inno

cent, there is an end to the independence of our judiciary. In opposition to this reasoning I have heard (not from the honorable managers) a sort of jargon about the sovereignty of the people, and that nothing in a republic should be independent of them-No phrase in our language is more abused or more misunderstood. The just and legitimate sovereignty of a people is truly an awful object, full of power and commanding respect. It consists in a full acknowledgment that all power originally emanates in some way from them, and that all responsibility is finally in some way due to them. And whether this is acknowleded or not, they have, if driven to the last resort, a physical force, to make it so-But sir, this sovereignty does not consist in a right to controul or interfere with the regular and legal operations and functions of the different branches of the government at the will and pleasure of the people. Having delegated their power, having distributed it for various purposes into various channels, and directed its course by certain limits, they have no right to impede it while it flows in its intended directions-Otherwise we have no government-In like manner the officers of government are responsible in certain modes and at certain periods for the exercise of their duties and powers-but the people have no right to make them accountable in any other manner or at any other period than that prescribed by the great compact of government-or constitution. Having parted with their power under certain regulations and restrictions, they are done with it-they are bound by their own act, and having retained and declared the manner in which they will correct abuses in office, they have no right to claim any other sort of responsibility-If this be not the case, what government have we? What rule of conduct? What system of association? None-But are truly in a

state of savage anarchy and ruthless confusion; with all the vices incident to civilization without the restraints to controul them.

Having discussed this necessary preliminary point as to what is or is not impeachable, I will proceed to a consideration of the charges now in issue between the respondent and the House of Representatives of the United States. It will be some relief to this honorable Court to learn that for the expediting of this trial, and to avoid useless and irksome repetition, the counsel for the respondent have divided the articles of impeachment among themselves. I shall beg leave to address you on the first article, which relates to the transactions at Philadelphia, on the trial of John Fries for high

treason.

The gentleman (Mr. Early) who has offered you his observations on these articles of impeachment, appears to have grounded his argument, not on the evidence but on the articles. Supposing, perhaps, that they would be proved, he has taken it for granted that they have been proved, and has shaped his remarks accordingly. Had we filed a general demurrer to these charges, thereby admitting them as stated, the argument of the gentle. man might have had the force and application he intended. But if I mistake not, the respondent has pleaded not guilty, and the case must therefore be decided by the amount of the evidence, and not by the averments of the articles. I admit, indeed, that the honorable managers are put to some difficulty in this respect. They are under the necessity of making their election betweeen the articles and the evidence as the foundation of their argument; for they are so totally dissimilar that they could not take them both: they meet in so few and such immaterial points, that no man can argue from them both for five sentences-This being

the situation of the gentlemen, he has thought proper to select the articles and the facts therein set forth as the foundation of his argument in defiance of the testimony. In the observations I shall have the honor to submit, I propose to take the evidence as my text and guide, and leave the articles, to shift for themselves, under the care and patronage of our honorable opponents.

Upon reading this first article of impeachment against the respondent, after a due degree of horror and indignation at the monstrous tyranny and oppression pourtrayed in it, the first question that would strike the mind of the inquirer would naturally be, when did this horrid transaction take place-when and where was it that Judge Chase thus persecuted an unfortunate wretch to the very brink of the grave, from which he was snatched by the interference of executive mercy, shocked at the injustice of his condemnation? When were the rights of juries and the privileges of counsel and their clients thus thrown down and prostrated at the feet of a cruel and inexorable judge? What would this inquirer think and believe on being informed that these atrocious outrages upon justice, law and humanity were perpetrated five years since-Why and where has the justice of the country slumbered so long? What now awakens it from this lethargic sleep? Why has this monstrous offender so long escaped the punishment of his crimes? To what region of refuge did he fly? But will not surprize be greatly increased, when it is told that at the time of the trial of John Fries, this injured and oppressed man, at the very time when these crimes of the judge were committed, the Congress of the United States, the guardian of our lives and liberties, were actually in session in the very city where the deeds were done, and probably witnessed the whole transaction-I do not expect to be answered