FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[430]Giles was appointed Senator August 11, 1804, by the Governor to fill the unexpired term of Abraham Venable who resigned in order that Giles might be sent to the Senate. In December the Legislature elected him for the full term. Upon taking his seat Giles immediately became the Republican leader of the Senate. (See Anderson, 93.)[431]Dec. 21, 1804,Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 322-23.[432]Dec. 21, 1804.Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 322-23.[433]Plumer, 274-75; and see especially Plumer, Jan. 5, 1804, "Congress," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.[434]The powerful Republican organ, theAurora, of Philadelphia, thus indicted the National Judiciary: Because judges could not be removed, "many wrongs are daily done by the courts to humble, obscure, or poor suitors.... It is a prodigeous monster in a free government to see a class of men set apart, not simply to administer the laws, but who exercise a legislative and even an executive power, directly in defiance and contempt of the Constitution." (Aurora, Jan. 28, 1805, as quoted in Corwin, 41.) Professor Corwin says that this utterance was approved by Jefferson.[435]"Mr. Giles from Virginia ... is the Ministerial leader in the Senate." (Plumer to Thompson, Dec. 23, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)"I considered Mr.Giles as the ablestpracticalpolitician of the whole party enlisted under Mr.Jefferson's banners." (Pickering to Marshall, Jan. 24, 1826, Pickering MSS. Mass. Hist. Soc.)[436]William Johnson of South Carolina, appointed March 26, 1804, vice William Moore, resigned. Johnson was a stanch Jeffersonian when appointed. He was thirty-three years old at the time he was made Associate Justice.[437]It is impossible to put too much emphasis on Giles's avowal. His statement is the key to the Chase impeachment.[438]Adams to his father, March 8, 1805,Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford,iii, 108.[439]Pickering to Lyman, Feb. 11, 1804,N.E. Federalism: Adams, 344; Lodge:Cabot, 444; also see Plumer, 275.[440]Plumer to Mason, Jan. 14, 1803, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.[441]Bayard to Bassett, Feb. 12, 1802,Bayard Papers: Donnan, 148.[442]Channing:Jeffersonian System, 119-20; Adams:U.S.ii, 225-27, 235; Anderson, 93, 95.[443]Smith to Plumer, Feb. 11, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.[444]Seeinfra, 176-77, 196.[445]2 Cranch, 358-405.[446]See vol.ii, 481-82, of this work.[447]See vol.ii, 71-74, of this work.[448]Fifteen years passed before a critical occasion called for another assertion by Marshall of the doctrine of implied powers; and that occasion produced one of Marshall's greatest opinions—in the judgment of many, the greatest of all his writings. (See McCullochvs.Maryland, vol.iv, chap.vi, of this work.)[449]Addison's address is historically important; it perfectly shows the distrust of democracy which all Federalist leaders then felt. Among other things, he pleaded for the independence of the Judiciary, asserted that it was their exclusive province to decide upon the constitutionality of laws, and stoutly maintained that no judge could be impeached except for an offense for which he also could be indicted. (Addison Trial, 101-43.)[450]The petition praying for the impeachment of Addison was sent to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives on January 11, 1802. On March 23, 1802, that body transmitted articles of impeachment to the State Senate. The trial was held in early January, 1803. Addison was convicted January 26, 1803. (Ib.)[451]Jefferson's Message was transmitted to the House, February 4, 1803, nine days after the conviction of Addison. It enclosed a "letter and affidavits" setting forth Pickering's conduct on the bench in the case of the ship Eliza, and suggested that "the Constitution has confided [to the House] a power of instituting proceedings of redress." (Annals, 7th Cong. 2d Sess. 460.)On March 2 the committee reported a resolution for Pickering's impeachment because of the commission by him of "high crimes and misdemeanors," and, though a few Federalists tried to postpone a vote, the resolution was adopted immediately.[452]Depositions of Samuel Tenney, Ammi R. Cutter, Joshua Brackett, Edward St. Loe Livermore. (Annals, 8th Cong. 1st Sess. 334-42.)[453]Testimony of John S. Sherburne, Thomas Chadbourne, and Jonathan Steele. (Ib.351-56.)[454]The wise and comprehensive Federalist Judiciary Act of 1801 covered just such cases. It provided that when a National judge was unable to discharge the duties of his office, the circuit judges should name one of their members to fill his place. (SeeAnnals, 6th Cong. 2d Sess. 1545.) This very thing had been done in the case of Judge Pickering (see McMaster:U.S.iii, 166). It is curious that, in the debate, the Republicans did not denounce this as unconstitutional.[455]Plumer, Jan. 5, 1804, "Congress," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.[456]Annals, 8th Cong. 1st Sess. 328-30.[457]Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 299-300.[458]"This," records Adams, "had evidently been settled ... out of court. And this is the way in which these men administer justice." (Ib.)[459]"In the House ... speeches are making every day to dictate to the Senate how they are to proceed; and the next morning they proceed accordingly." (Ib.301-02.)[460]Feb. 18, 1803, Plumer, 253.[461]Annals, 8th Cong. 1st Sess. 365.[462]SeeMemoirs, J. Q. A.; Adams,i, 302-04, for a vivid account of the whole incident.[463]Plumer, March 10, 1804, "Congress," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.[464]Annals, 8th Cong. 1st Sess. 367. "The independence of our judiciary is no more ... I hope the time is not far distant when the people east of the North riverwill manage their own affairs in their own way; ... and that thesoundpart will separate from thecorrupt." (Plumer to Morse, March 10, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.) On the unconstitutional and revolutionary conduct of the Republicans in the Pickering impeachment trial see Adams:U.S.ii, 158.[465]Senators John Armstrong of New York, Stephen R. Bradley of Vermont, and David Stone of North Carolina. Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey and Samuel White of Delaware, Federalists, also withdrew. (Annals, 8th Cong. 1st Sess. 366.) And seeMemoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 308-09; J. Q. Adams to his father, March 8, 1805,Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford,iii, 110; Plumer to Park, March 13, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.Senator John Brown of Kentucky, a Republican, "could not be induced to join the majority, but, unwilling to offend them, he obtained & has taken a leave of absence." (Plumer to Morse, March 10, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.) Senator Brown had been elected Presidentpro tem.of the Senate, January 23, 1804.Burr "abruptly left the Senate" to attend to his candidacy for the governorship of New York. (Plumer, March 10, 1804, "Congress," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.) Senator Franklin of North Carolina was then chosen Presidentpro tem.and presided during the trial of Pickering. But Burr returned in time to arrange for, and preside over, the trial of Justice Chase.[466]The Republicans even refused to allow the report of the proceedings to be "printed in the Appendix to the Journals of the Session." (Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams, I, 311.)The conviction and removal of Pickering alarmed the older Federalists almost as much as did the repeal of the Judiciary Act. "Thedemonof party governed the decision. All who condemned were Jeffersonians, and all who pronounced the accused not guilty were Federalists." (Pickering to Lyman, March 4, 1804,N.E. Federalism: Adams, 358-59; Lodge:Cabot, 450.)"I really wish those in New England who are boasting of the independence of our Judiciary would reflect on what a slender tenure Judges hold their offices whose political sentiments are at variance with the dominant party." (Plumer to Park, March 13, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)[467]Exhibitviii,Chase Trial, Appendix, 61-62; also seeAnnals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 675-76.[468]June 13, 1803.[469]SeeChase Trial, 101et seq.[470]See McMaster:U.S.iii, 162-70.[471]Jefferson to Nicholson, May 13, 1803,Jefferson Writings: Washington,iv, 484.[472]Macon to Nicholson, Aug. 6, 1803, Dodd:Life of Nathaniel Macon, 187-88. Macon seriously doubted the expediency and legality of the impeachment of Chase. However, he voted with his party.[473]Dodd, 187-88.[474]Adams to Rush, June 22, 1806,Old Family Letters, 100.[475]Chase "is very obnoxious to thepowers that be& must bedenounced, but articles will not be exhibited agt him this session. The Accusers have collected a volume of exparte evidence against him, printed & published it in pamphlets, & now it is publishing in the Court gazette to be diffused in every direction.... If a party to a suit at law, ... was to practice in this manner he would merit punishment." (Plumer to Smith, March 11, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)[476]Seesupra, chap.i. For the articles of impeachment seeAnnals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 85-88;Chase Trial, 10-11.The Republicans, for a time, contemplated the impeachment of Richard Peters, Judge of the United States Court for the District of Pennsylvania, who sat with Chase during the trial of Fries. (Annals, 8th Cong. 1st Sess. 823-24, 850, 873-74.) But his name was dropped because he had not "so acted in his judiciary capacity as to require the interposition of the Constitutional powers of this House." (Ib.1171.)Peters was terrified and turned upon his fellow judge. He showered Pickering and other friends with letters, complaining of the conduct of his judicial associate. "If I am to be immolated let it be with some other Victim—or for my own Sins." (Peters to Pickering, Jan. 26, 1804, Pickering MSS. Mass. Hist. Soc.)[477]J. Q. Adams to his father, March 14, 1805,Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford,iii, 116.[478]Dec. 20, 1804,Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 321.[479]Plumer to Cogswell, Jan. 4, 1805, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.; and see Plumer to Sheafe, Jan. 9, 1805, Plumer MSS.loc. cit.[480]Bayard to Harper, Jan. 30, 1804,Bayard Papers: Donnan, 160.[481]Pickering to Lyman, March 14, 1804, Lodge:Cabot, 450; alsoN.E. Federalism: Adams, 359.[482]Ames to Dwight, Jan. 20, 1805, Ames,i, 338.[483]The Yazoo fraud. No other financial scandal in our history equaled this, if one considers the comparative wealth and population of the country at the times other various great frauds were perpetrated. For an account of it, seeinfra, chap.x.[484]For Randolph's frantic speech on the Yazoo fraud and Marshall's opinion in Fletchervs. Peck, seeinfra, chap.x.[485]This form was adopted in the trial of Judge Pickering. SeeAnnals, 8th Cong. 1st Sess. 319.[486]See Plumer, 323.[487]Channing:U.S.iv, 287.[488]Marshall to James M. Marshall, April 1, 1804, MS.[489]William Marshall. Seeinfra, 191-92.[490]John Wickham, leader of the Richmond bar and one of Marshall's intimate friends.[491]Seesupra, chap.i; andinfra.[492]See 1 Kings,xii, 10.[493]Marshall to Chase, Jan. 23, 1804, Etting MSS. Pa. Hist. Soc.[494]Seeinfra, 192-96.[495]Seesupra, chap.iii, 113.[496]"MrBurr had the sole power of making the arrangements ... for the trial." (Plumer to Sheafe, Jan. 9, 1805, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)[497]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 100;Chase Trial, 2-5.[498]Plumer to Norris, Nov. 7, 1804, Plumer, 329.[499]Seeinfra, chap.vi.[500]See J. Q. Adams to his father, Jan. 5, 1805,Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford,iii, 104.[501]Plumer, 274. "John S. Sherburne, Jonathan Steele, Michael McCleary and Richard Cutts Shannon were the principal witnesses against Pickering. Sherburne was appointed Judge [in Pickering's place]; Steele, District Attorney; McCleary, Marshal; and Shannon, Clerk of the Court.... Steele, expecting to have been Judge refused to accept his appointment, assigning as the reason his agency in the removal of Pickering."[502]Plumer, 329-30; and see Adams:U.S.ii, 220.[503]Nov. 26, 1804,Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 317-18; and Adams,U.S.ii, 220-22."Burr is flattered and feared by the administration." (Plumer to Thompson, Dec. 23, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.; and Plumer to Wilson, Dec. 7, 1804, Plumer MSS.loc. cit.)[504]Davis,ii, 360; also Adams:U.S.218-44."It must be acknowledged that Burr has displayed much ability, and since the first day I have seen nothing of partiality." (Cutler to Torrey, March 1, 1805, Cutler:Life, Journals and Correspondence of Manasseh Cutler,ii, 193.)At the beginning of the trial, however, Burr's rigor irritated the Senate: "Mr. Burr is remarkably testy—he acts more of the tyrant—is impatient, passionate—scolds—he is in a rage because we do not sit longer." (Plumer, Feb. 8, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)"Just as the time for adjourning to morrow was to be put ... Mr. Burr said he wished to inform the Senate of some irregularities that he had observed in the Court."Some of the Senators as he said during the trial & while a witness was under examination walked between him & the Managers—others eat apples—& some eat cake in their seats."Mr. Pickering said he eat an apple—but it was at a time when the President had retired from the chair. Burr replied he did not mean him—he did not see him."Mr. Wright said he eat cake—he had a just right to do so—he was faint—but he disturbed nobody—He never would submit to be schooled & catechised in this manner."At this instance a motion was made by Bradley, who also had eaten cake, for an adjournment. Burr told Wright he was not in order—sit down. The Senate adjourned—& I left Burr and Wright scolding."Really,Master Burr, you need a ferule, or birch to enforce your lectures on polite behavior!" (Ib.Feb. 12, 1805; alsoib.Jan. 2, 1805.) Burr was sharply criticized by theWashington Federalist, January 8, for his rude conduct at the beginning of the trial.[505]Plumer to Sheafe, Jan. 1805, Plumer, 330-31.[506]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 92;Chase Trial, 4.[507]Dwight:Signers of the Declaration of Independence, 245-52.[508]Hudson:Journalism in the United States, 1690-1872, 214; and see Story to Bramble, June 10, 1807, Story,i, 154.[509]"In person, in manners, in unwieldy strength, in severity of reproof, in real tenderness of heart; and above all in intellect," he was "the living, I had almost said the exact, image of Samuel Johnson." (Story to Fay, Feb. 25, 1808, Story,i, 168.)Chase's career had been stirring and important. Carefully educated by his father, an Episcopal clergyman, and thoroughly grounded in the law, he became eminent at the Maryland bar at a very early age. From the first his aggressive character asserted itself. He was rudely independent and, as a member of the Maryland House of Burgesses, treated the royal governor and his Tory partisans with contemptuous defiance. When the British attempted to enforce the Stamp Act, he joined a band of high-spirited young patriots who called themselves "The Sons of Liberty," and led them in their raids upon public offices, which they broke open, seizing and destroying the stamps and burning in effigy the stamp distributor.His violent and fearless opposition to British rule and officials made young Chase so popular that he was elected as one of the five Maryland delegates to the first Continental Congress that assembled during the winter of 1774. He was reëlected the following year, and was foremost in urging the measures of armed defense that ended in the appointment of Washington as Commander-in-Chief of the American forces. Disregarding the instructions of his State, Chase hotly championed the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, and was one of the signers of that document.On the floor of Congress he denounced a member as a traitor—one Zubly, a Georgia parson—who in terror fled the country. Chase continued in the Continental Congress until 1778 and was appointed a member of almost every important committee of that body. He became the leader of his profession in Maryland, was appointed Chief Justice of the Criminal Court of Baltimore, and elected a member of the Maryland Convention, called to ratify the National Constitution. Thereafter, he was made Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State. In 1796, President Washington appointed Chase as Associate Justice of the National Supreme Court of which he was conceded to be one of the ablest members. (Dwight, 245-52.)[510]See Plumer to his brother, Feb. 25, 1805, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.[511]Maryland Historical Society Fund-Publication No. 24, p. 20. Burr told Key that "he must not appear as counsel with his loose coat on." (Plumer, Feb. 11, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)[512]Adams:U.S.ii, 227-28. Bayard strongly urged Chase to have no counsel, but to defend himself. (Bayard to Harper, Jan. 30, 1804,Bayard Papers: Donnan, 159-60.)[513]See Story's description of Martin three years later, Story to Fay, Feb. 16, 1808, Story,i, 163-64.Luther Martin well illustrates the fleeting nature of the fame of even the greatest lawyers. For two generations he was "an acknowledged leader of the American bar," and his preëminence in that noble profession was brightened by fine public service. Yet within a few years after his death, he was totally forgotten, and to-day few except historical students know that such a man ever lived.Martin began his practice of the law when twenty-three years of age and his success was immediate and tremendous. His legal learning was prodigious—his memory phenomenal.Apparently, Martin was the heaviest drinker of that period of heavy drinking men. The inexplicable feature of his continuous excesses was that his mighty drinking seldom appeared to affect his professional efficiency. Only once in his long and active career did intoxication interfere with his work in court. (Seeinfra, 586.)Passionate in his loves and hates, he abhorred Jefferson with all the ardor of his violent nature; and his favorite denunciation of any bad man was, "Sir! he is as great a scoundrel as Thomas Jefferson."For thirty years Martin was the Attorney-General of Maryland. He was the most powerful member of his State in the Convention that framed the National Constitution which he refused to sign, opposing the ratification of it in arguments of such signal ability that forty years afterward John C. Calhoun quarried from them the material for his famous Nullification speeches.When, however, the Constitution was ratified and became the supreme law of the land, Martin, with characteristic wholeheartedness, supported it loyally and championed the Administrations of Washington and Adams.He was the lifelong friend of the impeached justice, to whom he owed his first appointment as Attorney-General of Maryland as well as great assistance and encouragement in the beginning of his career. Chase and he were also boon companions, each filled with admiration for the talents and attainments of the other, and strikingly similar in their courage and fidelity to friends and principles. So the lawyer threw himself into the fight for the persecuted judge with all his astonishing strength.When, in his old age, he was stricken with paralysis, the Maryland Legislature placed a tax of five dollars annually on all lawyers for his support. After Martin's death the bench and bar of Baltimore passed a resolution that "we will wear mourning for the space of thirty days." (American Law Review,i, 279.)No biography of Martin has ever been written; but there are two excellent sketches of his life, one by Ashley M. Gould inGreat American Lawyers: Lewis,ii, 3-46; and the other by Henry P. Goddard in theMd. Hist. Soc. Fund. Pub. No. 24.[514]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 160-61. The case to which Randolph refers was that of the United Statesvs.Thomas Logwood, indicted in April, 1801, for counterfeiting. Logwood was tried in the United States Circuit Court at Richmond during June, 1804. Marshall, sitting with District Judge Cyrus Griffin, presided. Notwithstanding Marshall's liberality, Logwood was convicted and Marshall sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment at hard labor. (Order Book No. 4, 464, Records, U.S. Circuit Court, Richmond.)[515]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 163-65;Chase Trial, 18. Randolph disgusted the Federalists. "This speech is the most feeble—the most incorrect that I ever heard him make." (Plumer, Feb. 9, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)[516]Two witnesses to the Baltimore incident, George Reed and John Montgomery, committed their testimony to memory as much "as ever a Presbyterian clergyman did his sermon—or an Episcopalian his prayer." (Plumer, Feb. 14, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)[517]Seesupra, chap.i.[518]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 203-05;Chase Trial, 36-37.[519]Plumer, Feb. 11, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.[520]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 200;Chase Trial, 35.[521]Seesupra, chap.i.[522]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 207. John Quincy Adams's description of all of the evidence is important and entertaining:"Not only the casual expressions dropped in private conversations among friends and intimates, as well as strangers and adversaries, in the recess of a bed-chamber as well as at public taverns and in stage coaches, had been carefully and malignantly laid up and preserved for testimony on this prosecution; not only more witnesses examined to points ofopinion, and called upon for discrimination to such a degree as to say whether the deportment of the Judge wasimperativeorimperious, but hours of interrogation and answer were consumed in evidence tolooks, tobows, to tones of voice and modes of speech—to prove the insufferable grievance that Mr. Chase had more than once raised a laugh at the expense of Callender's counsel, and to ascertain the tremendous fact that he had accosted theAttorney Generalof Virginiaby the appellation ofYoung Gentleman!!"If by thumbscrews, the memory of a witness trace back for a period of five years the features of the Judge's face, it could be darkened with a frown, it was to be construed into rude and contumelious treatment of the Virginia bar; if it was found lightened with a smile, 'tyrants in all ages had been notorious for their pleasantry.'"In short, sir, Gravity himself could not keep his countenance at the nauseating littlenesses which were resorted to for proof of atrocious criminality, and indignation melted into ridicule at the puerile perseverance with whichnothingswere accumulated, with the hope of makingsomethingby their multitude."All this, however, was received because Judge Chase would not suffer his counsel to object against it. He indulged his accusers with the utmost licence of investigation which they ever derived [sic], and contented himself with observing to the court that he expected to be judged upon thelegalevidence in the case." (J. Q. Adams to his father, March 8, 1805,Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford,iii, 112-13.)[523]This was the fourth member of the Marshall family upon whom offices were bestowed while Marshall was Secretary of State. (See vol.ii, 560, of this work.)[524]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 251-62;Chase Trial, 65-69. "I was unable to give credence to his [Heath's] testimony." (Plumer, Feb. 12, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.) Although Heath's story was entirely false, it has, nevertheless, found a place in serious history.Marshall's brother made an excellent impression on the Senate. "His answers were both prompt & lucid—There was a frankness, a fairness & I will add a firmness that did him much credit. His testimony was [on certain points] ... a complete defense of the accused." (Ib.Feb. 15, 1805.)[525]Harvie's son, Jacquelin B. Harvie, married Marshall's daughter Mary. (Paxton:Marshall Family, 100.)[526]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 262-67;Chase Trial, 71.[527]Plumer, Feb. 16, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.[528]Feb. 19, 1805,Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 354.Chase did not leave Washington, and was in court when some of the arguments were made. (See Chase to Hopkinson, March 10, 1805; Hopkinson MSS. in possession of Edward P. Hopkinson, Phila.)[529]Feb. 13, 1805,Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 351.[530]Ib.The motion to admit the public was carried by one vote only. (Plumer, Feb. 13, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)[531]Feb. 13, 1805,Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 353.[532]Feb. 20, 1805,ib.355.[533]Cutler,ii, 183; alsoAnnals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 313-29;Chase Trial, 101-07.[534]Plumer, Feb. 20, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.[535]Cutler,ii, 183.[536]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 329-53;Chase Trial, 107et seq.[537]Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 355-56.[538]Plumer, Feb. 21, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.[539]Adams:U.S.ii, 231. Even Randolph praised him. (Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 640.)[540]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 354-94;Chase Trial, 116-49.[541]Feb. 21, 1805,Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 356."The effect on the auditory [was] prodigiously great." (Cutler,ii, 184.)"His argument ... was one of the most able ... I ever heard." (Plumer, Feb. 21, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)[542]Feb. 22, 1805,Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 356.[543]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 394-413; see alsoChase Trial, 149-62; and Cutler,ii, 184.[544]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 413-29;Chase Trial, 162-72.[545]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 429-82;Chase Trial, 173et seq.[546]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 483.[547]Ib.484-87.[548]See résumé of Franklin's indictment of the press in vol.i, 268-69, of this work.[549]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 488;Chase Trial, *223.[550]"Mr. Martin really possesses much legal information & a great fund of good humour, keen satire & poignant wit ... he certainly has talents." (Plumer, Feb. 23, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)[551]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 489;Chase Trial, *224.[552]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 556;Chase Trial, *205-44.[553]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 560-62;Chase Trial, 237et seq.[554]See Jefferson to Hay,infra, chap.viii.[555]Seeinfra, chap.x.[556]Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 358.[557]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 582;Chase Trial, 237-43.[558]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 583.This was an under-statement of the facts; for the first time the celebration of Washington's birthday was abandoned in the National Capital. (Plumer, 326.) Plumer says that this was done because the celebration might hurt Chase, "for there are senators who for the veriest trifles may be brought to vote against him." (Feb. 22, 1805, "Congress," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)[559]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 583-84;Chase Trial, 243-56.[560]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 585-87.[561]Rodney here refers to the Republican allegation that Chase tried to secure appointment as Chief Justice by flattering Adams through charges to juries, rulings in court, and speeches on the stump.[562]John Jay to England and Oliver Ellsworth to France. (See vol.ii, 113, 502, of this work.)[563]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 587-89.[564]Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 359.[565]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 583-641;Chase Trial, 243-56.[566]Cutler announced it as "an outrageous, infuriated declamation, which might have done honor to Marat, or Robespierre." (Cutler,ii, 184.)[567]Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 359.[568]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 642;Chase Trial, 256.[569]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 644;Chase Trial, 257.[570]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 644-45;Chase Trial, 258.[571]Seeinfra, chap.x.[572]Seesupra, 196.[573]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 651-52;Chase Trial, 266.[574]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 641-62. John Quincy Adams notes in his diary that Randolph spoke for more than two hours "with as little relation to the subject matter as possible—without order, connection, or argument; consisting altogether of the most hackneyed commonplaces of popular declamation." Throughout, records Adams, there was "much distortion of face and contortion of body, tears, groans and sobs." (Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 359.)"His speech ... was devoid of argument, method or consistency—but was replete with invective & even vulgarity.... I never heard him deliver such a weak feeble & deranged harangue." (Plumer to his wife, Feb. 28, 1805, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)"After he sat down—he threw his feet upon the table—distorted his features & assumed an appearance as disgusting as his harangue." (Plumer, Feb. 27, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)[575]Seesupra, chaps.iiandiii;infra, chap.vi, and vol.iv, chap.i.[576]"There was a vast concourse of people ... and great solemnity." (Cutler to Torrey, March 1, 1805, Cutler,ii, 193.) "The galleries were crowded—many ladies. I never witnessed so general & so deep an anxiety." (Plumer to his wife, March 1, 1805, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)[577]Plumer, 323.[578]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 665-69;Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 362-63.[579]Ib.363.[580]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 669. By this time Burr had changed to admiration the disapproval with which the Federalist Senators had, at first, regarded his conduct of the trial. "Mr. Burr has certainly, on the whole, done himself, the Senate, and the Nation honor by the dignified manner in which he has presided over this high and numerous court," testifies Senator Plumer, notwithstanding his deep prejudice against Burr. (Plumer, March 1, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)[581]See Adams:U.S.ii, 243.[582]See Plumer, 324;Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 371; Adams:John Randolph, 131-32, 152; Channing:Jeff. System, 120; Adams:U.S.ii, 243.[583]Plumer here adds six years to Chase's age—an unusual inaccuracy in the diary of that born newspaper reporter.[584]Plumer to his son, March 3, 1805, Plumer, 325.[585]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 1213; and seeAnnual Report, Am. Hist. Assn. 1896,ii, 64; also Adams:U.S.ii, 240.[586]Cutler,ii, 185.[587]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 1213; and see J. Q. Adams to his father, March 14, 1805,Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford,iii, 117.[588]Jan. 30, 1805,Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 341.[589]See Adams:U.S.ii, 243.[590]Seeinfra, chap.x.[591]Plumer, 325. Jefferson soon took Plumer into the Republican fold.

[430]Giles was appointed Senator August 11, 1804, by the Governor to fill the unexpired term of Abraham Venable who resigned in order that Giles might be sent to the Senate. In December the Legislature elected him for the full term. Upon taking his seat Giles immediately became the Republican leader of the Senate. (See Anderson, 93.)

[431]Dec. 21, 1804,Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 322-23.

[432]Dec. 21, 1804.Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 322-23.

[433]Plumer, 274-75; and see especially Plumer, Jan. 5, 1804, "Congress," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.

[434]The powerful Republican organ, theAurora, of Philadelphia, thus indicted the National Judiciary: Because judges could not be removed, "many wrongs are daily done by the courts to humble, obscure, or poor suitors.... It is a prodigeous monster in a free government to see a class of men set apart, not simply to administer the laws, but who exercise a legislative and even an executive power, directly in defiance and contempt of the Constitution." (Aurora, Jan. 28, 1805, as quoted in Corwin, 41.) Professor Corwin says that this utterance was approved by Jefferson.

[435]"Mr. Giles from Virginia ... is the Ministerial leader in the Senate." (Plumer to Thompson, Dec. 23, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)"I considered Mr.Giles as the ablestpracticalpolitician of the whole party enlisted under Mr.Jefferson's banners." (Pickering to Marshall, Jan. 24, 1826, Pickering MSS. Mass. Hist. Soc.)

[435]"Mr. Giles from Virginia ... is the Ministerial leader in the Senate." (Plumer to Thompson, Dec. 23, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)

"I considered Mr.Giles as the ablestpracticalpolitician of the whole party enlisted under Mr.Jefferson's banners." (Pickering to Marshall, Jan. 24, 1826, Pickering MSS. Mass. Hist. Soc.)

[436]William Johnson of South Carolina, appointed March 26, 1804, vice William Moore, resigned. Johnson was a stanch Jeffersonian when appointed. He was thirty-three years old at the time he was made Associate Justice.

[437]It is impossible to put too much emphasis on Giles's avowal. His statement is the key to the Chase impeachment.

[438]Adams to his father, March 8, 1805,Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford,iii, 108.

[439]Pickering to Lyman, Feb. 11, 1804,N.E. Federalism: Adams, 344; Lodge:Cabot, 444; also see Plumer, 275.

[440]Plumer to Mason, Jan. 14, 1803, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.

[441]Bayard to Bassett, Feb. 12, 1802,Bayard Papers: Donnan, 148.

[442]Channing:Jeffersonian System, 119-20; Adams:U.S.ii, 225-27, 235; Anderson, 93, 95.

[443]Smith to Plumer, Feb. 11, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.

[444]Seeinfra, 176-77, 196.

[445]2 Cranch, 358-405.

[446]See vol.ii, 481-82, of this work.

[447]See vol.ii, 71-74, of this work.

[448]Fifteen years passed before a critical occasion called for another assertion by Marshall of the doctrine of implied powers; and that occasion produced one of Marshall's greatest opinions—in the judgment of many, the greatest of all his writings. (See McCullochvs.Maryland, vol.iv, chap.vi, of this work.)

[449]Addison's address is historically important; it perfectly shows the distrust of democracy which all Federalist leaders then felt. Among other things, he pleaded for the independence of the Judiciary, asserted that it was their exclusive province to decide upon the constitutionality of laws, and stoutly maintained that no judge could be impeached except for an offense for which he also could be indicted. (Addison Trial, 101-43.)

[450]The petition praying for the impeachment of Addison was sent to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives on January 11, 1802. On March 23, 1802, that body transmitted articles of impeachment to the State Senate. The trial was held in early January, 1803. Addison was convicted January 26, 1803. (Ib.)

[451]Jefferson's Message was transmitted to the House, February 4, 1803, nine days after the conviction of Addison. It enclosed a "letter and affidavits" setting forth Pickering's conduct on the bench in the case of the ship Eliza, and suggested that "the Constitution has confided [to the House] a power of instituting proceedings of redress." (Annals, 7th Cong. 2d Sess. 460.)On March 2 the committee reported a resolution for Pickering's impeachment because of the commission by him of "high crimes and misdemeanors," and, though a few Federalists tried to postpone a vote, the resolution was adopted immediately.

On March 2 the committee reported a resolution for Pickering's impeachment because of the commission by him of "high crimes and misdemeanors," and, though a few Federalists tried to postpone a vote, the resolution was adopted immediately.

[452]Depositions of Samuel Tenney, Ammi R. Cutter, Joshua Brackett, Edward St. Loe Livermore. (Annals, 8th Cong. 1st Sess. 334-42.)

[453]Testimony of John S. Sherburne, Thomas Chadbourne, and Jonathan Steele. (Ib.351-56.)

[454]The wise and comprehensive Federalist Judiciary Act of 1801 covered just such cases. It provided that when a National judge was unable to discharge the duties of his office, the circuit judges should name one of their members to fill his place. (SeeAnnals, 6th Cong. 2d Sess. 1545.) This very thing had been done in the case of Judge Pickering (see McMaster:U.S.iii, 166). It is curious that, in the debate, the Republicans did not denounce this as unconstitutional.

[455]Plumer, Jan. 5, 1804, "Congress," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.

[456]Annals, 8th Cong. 1st Sess. 328-30.

[457]Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 299-300.

[458]"This," records Adams, "had evidently been settled ... out of court. And this is the way in which these men administer justice." (Ib.)

[459]"In the House ... speeches are making every day to dictate to the Senate how they are to proceed; and the next morning they proceed accordingly." (Ib.301-02.)

[460]Feb. 18, 1803, Plumer, 253.

[461]Annals, 8th Cong. 1st Sess. 365.

[462]SeeMemoirs, J. Q. A.; Adams,i, 302-04, for a vivid account of the whole incident.

[463]Plumer, March 10, 1804, "Congress," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.

[464]Annals, 8th Cong. 1st Sess. 367. "The independence of our judiciary is no more ... I hope the time is not far distant when the people east of the North riverwill manage their own affairs in their own way; ... and that thesoundpart will separate from thecorrupt." (Plumer to Morse, March 10, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.) On the unconstitutional and revolutionary conduct of the Republicans in the Pickering impeachment trial see Adams:U.S.ii, 158.

[465]Senators John Armstrong of New York, Stephen R. Bradley of Vermont, and David Stone of North Carolina. Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey and Samuel White of Delaware, Federalists, also withdrew. (Annals, 8th Cong. 1st Sess. 366.) And seeMemoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 308-09; J. Q. Adams to his father, March 8, 1805,Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford,iii, 110; Plumer to Park, March 13, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.Senator John Brown of Kentucky, a Republican, "could not be induced to join the majority, but, unwilling to offend them, he obtained & has taken a leave of absence." (Plumer to Morse, March 10, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.) Senator Brown had been elected Presidentpro tem.of the Senate, January 23, 1804.Burr "abruptly left the Senate" to attend to his candidacy for the governorship of New York. (Plumer, March 10, 1804, "Congress," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.) Senator Franklin of North Carolina was then chosen Presidentpro tem.and presided during the trial of Pickering. But Burr returned in time to arrange for, and preside over, the trial of Justice Chase.

Senator John Brown of Kentucky, a Republican, "could not be induced to join the majority, but, unwilling to offend them, he obtained & has taken a leave of absence." (Plumer to Morse, March 10, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.) Senator Brown had been elected Presidentpro tem.of the Senate, January 23, 1804.

Burr "abruptly left the Senate" to attend to his candidacy for the governorship of New York. (Plumer, March 10, 1804, "Congress," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.) Senator Franklin of North Carolina was then chosen Presidentpro tem.and presided during the trial of Pickering. But Burr returned in time to arrange for, and preside over, the trial of Justice Chase.

[466]The Republicans even refused to allow the report of the proceedings to be "printed in the Appendix to the Journals of the Session." (Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams, I, 311.)The conviction and removal of Pickering alarmed the older Federalists almost as much as did the repeal of the Judiciary Act. "Thedemonof party governed the decision. All who condemned were Jeffersonians, and all who pronounced the accused not guilty were Federalists." (Pickering to Lyman, March 4, 1804,N.E. Federalism: Adams, 358-59; Lodge:Cabot, 450.)"I really wish those in New England who are boasting of the independence of our Judiciary would reflect on what a slender tenure Judges hold their offices whose political sentiments are at variance with the dominant party." (Plumer to Park, March 13, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)

[466]The Republicans even refused to allow the report of the proceedings to be "printed in the Appendix to the Journals of the Session." (Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams, I, 311.)

The conviction and removal of Pickering alarmed the older Federalists almost as much as did the repeal of the Judiciary Act. "Thedemonof party governed the decision. All who condemned were Jeffersonians, and all who pronounced the accused not guilty were Federalists." (Pickering to Lyman, March 4, 1804,N.E. Federalism: Adams, 358-59; Lodge:Cabot, 450.)

"I really wish those in New England who are boasting of the independence of our Judiciary would reflect on what a slender tenure Judges hold their offices whose political sentiments are at variance with the dominant party." (Plumer to Park, March 13, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)

[467]Exhibitviii,Chase Trial, Appendix, 61-62; also seeAnnals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 675-76.

[468]June 13, 1803.

[469]SeeChase Trial, 101et seq.

[470]See McMaster:U.S.iii, 162-70.

[471]Jefferson to Nicholson, May 13, 1803,Jefferson Writings: Washington,iv, 484.

[472]Macon to Nicholson, Aug. 6, 1803, Dodd:Life of Nathaniel Macon, 187-88. Macon seriously doubted the expediency and legality of the impeachment of Chase. However, he voted with his party.

[473]Dodd, 187-88.

[474]Adams to Rush, June 22, 1806,Old Family Letters, 100.

[475]Chase "is very obnoxious to thepowers that be& must bedenounced, but articles will not be exhibited agt him this session. The Accusers have collected a volume of exparte evidence against him, printed & published it in pamphlets, & now it is publishing in the Court gazette to be diffused in every direction.... If a party to a suit at law, ... was to practice in this manner he would merit punishment." (Plumer to Smith, March 11, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)

[476]Seesupra, chap.i. For the articles of impeachment seeAnnals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 85-88;Chase Trial, 10-11.The Republicans, for a time, contemplated the impeachment of Richard Peters, Judge of the United States Court for the District of Pennsylvania, who sat with Chase during the trial of Fries. (Annals, 8th Cong. 1st Sess. 823-24, 850, 873-74.) But his name was dropped because he had not "so acted in his judiciary capacity as to require the interposition of the Constitutional powers of this House." (Ib.1171.)Peters was terrified and turned upon his fellow judge. He showered Pickering and other friends with letters, complaining of the conduct of his judicial associate. "If I am to be immolated let it be with some other Victim—or for my own Sins." (Peters to Pickering, Jan. 26, 1804, Pickering MSS. Mass. Hist. Soc.)

[476]Seesupra, chap.i. For the articles of impeachment seeAnnals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 85-88;Chase Trial, 10-11.

The Republicans, for a time, contemplated the impeachment of Richard Peters, Judge of the United States Court for the District of Pennsylvania, who sat with Chase during the trial of Fries. (Annals, 8th Cong. 1st Sess. 823-24, 850, 873-74.) But his name was dropped because he had not "so acted in his judiciary capacity as to require the interposition of the Constitutional powers of this House." (Ib.1171.)

Peters was terrified and turned upon his fellow judge. He showered Pickering and other friends with letters, complaining of the conduct of his judicial associate. "If I am to be immolated let it be with some other Victim—or for my own Sins." (Peters to Pickering, Jan. 26, 1804, Pickering MSS. Mass. Hist. Soc.)

[477]J. Q. Adams to his father, March 14, 1805,Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford,iii, 116.

[478]Dec. 20, 1804,Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 321.

[479]Plumer to Cogswell, Jan. 4, 1805, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.; and see Plumer to Sheafe, Jan. 9, 1805, Plumer MSS.loc. cit.

[480]Bayard to Harper, Jan. 30, 1804,Bayard Papers: Donnan, 160.

[481]Pickering to Lyman, March 14, 1804, Lodge:Cabot, 450; alsoN.E. Federalism: Adams, 359.

[482]Ames to Dwight, Jan. 20, 1805, Ames,i, 338.

[483]The Yazoo fraud. No other financial scandal in our history equaled this, if one considers the comparative wealth and population of the country at the times other various great frauds were perpetrated. For an account of it, seeinfra, chap.x.

[484]For Randolph's frantic speech on the Yazoo fraud and Marshall's opinion in Fletchervs. Peck, seeinfra, chap.x.

[485]This form was adopted in the trial of Judge Pickering. SeeAnnals, 8th Cong. 1st Sess. 319.

[486]See Plumer, 323.

[487]Channing:U.S.iv, 287.

[488]Marshall to James M. Marshall, April 1, 1804, MS.

[489]William Marshall. Seeinfra, 191-92.

[490]John Wickham, leader of the Richmond bar and one of Marshall's intimate friends.

[491]Seesupra, chap.i; andinfra.

[492]See 1 Kings,xii, 10.

[493]Marshall to Chase, Jan. 23, 1804, Etting MSS. Pa. Hist. Soc.

[494]Seeinfra, 192-96.

[495]Seesupra, chap.iii, 113.

[496]"MrBurr had the sole power of making the arrangements ... for the trial." (Plumer to Sheafe, Jan. 9, 1805, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)

[497]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 100;Chase Trial, 2-5.

[498]Plumer to Norris, Nov. 7, 1804, Plumer, 329.

[499]Seeinfra, chap.vi.

[500]See J. Q. Adams to his father, Jan. 5, 1805,Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford,iii, 104.

[501]Plumer, 274. "John S. Sherburne, Jonathan Steele, Michael McCleary and Richard Cutts Shannon were the principal witnesses against Pickering. Sherburne was appointed Judge [in Pickering's place]; Steele, District Attorney; McCleary, Marshal; and Shannon, Clerk of the Court.... Steele, expecting to have been Judge refused to accept his appointment, assigning as the reason his agency in the removal of Pickering."

[502]Plumer, 329-30; and see Adams:U.S.ii, 220.

[503]Nov. 26, 1804,Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 317-18; and Adams,U.S.ii, 220-22."Burr is flattered and feared by the administration." (Plumer to Thompson, Dec. 23, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.; and Plumer to Wilson, Dec. 7, 1804, Plumer MSS.loc. cit.)

[503]Nov. 26, 1804,Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 317-18; and Adams,U.S.ii, 220-22.

"Burr is flattered and feared by the administration." (Plumer to Thompson, Dec. 23, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.; and Plumer to Wilson, Dec. 7, 1804, Plumer MSS.loc. cit.)

[504]Davis,ii, 360; also Adams:U.S.218-44."It must be acknowledged that Burr has displayed much ability, and since the first day I have seen nothing of partiality." (Cutler to Torrey, March 1, 1805, Cutler:Life, Journals and Correspondence of Manasseh Cutler,ii, 193.)At the beginning of the trial, however, Burr's rigor irritated the Senate: "Mr. Burr is remarkably testy—he acts more of the tyrant—is impatient, passionate—scolds—he is in a rage because we do not sit longer." (Plumer, Feb. 8, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)"Just as the time for adjourning to morrow was to be put ... Mr. Burr said he wished to inform the Senate of some irregularities that he had observed in the Court."Some of the Senators as he said during the trial & while a witness was under examination walked between him & the Managers—others eat apples—& some eat cake in their seats."Mr. Pickering said he eat an apple—but it was at a time when the President had retired from the chair. Burr replied he did not mean him—he did not see him."Mr. Wright said he eat cake—he had a just right to do so—he was faint—but he disturbed nobody—He never would submit to be schooled & catechised in this manner."At this instance a motion was made by Bradley, who also had eaten cake, for an adjournment. Burr told Wright he was not in order—sit down. The Senate adjourned—& I left Burr and Wright scolding."Really,Master Burr, you need a ferule, or birch to enforce your lectures on polite behavior!" (Ib.Feb. 12, 1805; alsoib.Jan. 2, 1805.) Burr was sharply criticized by theWashington Federalist, January 8, for his rude conduct at the beginning of the trial.

[504]Davis,ii, 360; also Adams:U.S.218-44.

"It must be acknowledged that Burr has displayed much ability, and since the first day I have seen nothing of partiality." (Cutler to Torrey, March 1, 1805, Cutler:Life, Journals and Correspondence of Manasseh Cutler,ii, 193.)

At the beginning of the trial, however, Burr's rigor irritated the Senate: "Mr. Burr is remarkably testy—he acts more of the tyrant—is impatient, passionate—scolds—he is in a rage because we do not sit longer." (Plumer, Feb. 8, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)

"Just as the time for adjourning to morrow was to be put ... Mr. Burr said he wished to inform the Senate of some irregularities that he had observed in the Court.

"Some of the Senators as he said during the trial & while a witness was under examination walked between him & the Managers—others eat apples—& some eat cake in their seats.

"Mr. Pickering said he eat an apple—but it was at a time when the President had retired from the chair. Burr replied he did not mean him—he did not see him.

"Mr. Wright said he eat cake—he had a just right to do so—he was faint—but he disturbed nobody—He never would submit to be schooled & catechised in this manner.

"At this instance a motion was made by Bradley, who also had eaten cake, for an adjournment. Burr told Wright he was not in order—sit down. The Senate adjourned—& I left Burr and Wright scolding.

"Really,Master Burr, you need a ferule, or birch to enforce your lectures on polite behavior!" (Ib.Feb. 12, 1805; alsoib.Jan. 2, 1805.) Burr was sharply criticized by theWashington Federalist, January 8, for his rude conduct at the beginning of the trial.

[505]Plumer to Sheafe, Jan. 1805, Plumer, 330-31.

[506]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 92;Chase Trial, 4.

[507]Dwight:Signers of the Declaration of Independence, 245-52.

[508]Hudson:Journalism in the United States, 1690-1872, 214; and see Story to Bramble, June 10, 1807, Story,i, 154.

[509]"In person, in manners, in unwieldy strength, in severity of reproof, in real tenderness of heart; and above all in intellect," he was "the living, I had almost said the exact, image of Samuel Johnson." (Story to Fay, Feb. 25, 1808, Story,i, 168.)Chase's career had been stirring and important. Carefully educated by his father, an Episcopal clergyman, and thoroughly grounded in the law, he became eminent at the Maryland bar at a very early age. From the first his aggressive character asserted itself. He was rudely independent and, as a member of the Maryland House of Burgesses, treated the royal governor and his Tory partisans with contemptuous defiance. When the British attempted to enforce the Stamp Act, he joined a band of high-spirited young patriots who called themselves "The Sons of Liberty," and led them in their raids upon public offices, which they broke open, seizing and destroying the stamps and burning in effigy the stamp distributor.His violent and fearless opposition to British rule and officials made young Chase so popular that he was elected as one of the five Maryland delegates to the first Continental Congress that assembled during the winter of 1774. He was reëlected the following year, and was foremost in urging the measures of armed defense that ended in the appointment of Washington as Commander-in-Chief of the American forces. Disregarding the instructions of his State, Chase hotly championed the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, and was one of the signers of that document.On the floor of Congress he denounced a member as a traitor—one Zubly, a Georgia parson—who in terror fled the country. Chase continued in the Continental Congress until 1778 and was appointed a member of almost every important committee of that body. He became the leader of his profession in Maryland, was appointed Chief Justice of the Criminal Court of Baltimore, and elected a member of the Maryland Convention, called to ratify the National Constitution. Thereafter, he was made Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State. In 1796, President Washington appointed Chase as Associate Justice of the National Supreme Court of which he was conceded to be one of the ablest members. (Dwight, 245-52.)

Chase's career had been stirring and important. Carefully educated by his father, an Episcopal clergyman, and thoroughly grounded in the law, he became eminent at the Maryland bar at a very early age. From the first his aggressive character asserted itself. He was rudely independent and, as a member of the Maryland House of Burgesses, treated the royal governor and his Tory partisans with contemptuous defiance. When the British attempted to enforce the Stamp Act, he joined a band of high-spirited young patriots who called themselves "The Sons of Liberty," and led them in their raids upon public offices, which they broke open, seizing and destroying the stamps and burning in effigy the stamp distributor.

His violent and fearless opposition to British rule and officials made young Chase so popular that he was elected as one of the five Maryland delegates to the first Continental Congress that assembled during the winter of 1774. He was reëlected the following year, and was foremost in urging the measures of armed defense that ended in the appointment of Washington as Commander-in-Chief of the American forces. Disregarding the instructions of his State, Chase hotly championed the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, and was one of the signers of that document.

On the floor of Congress he denounced a member as a traitor—one Zubly, a Georgia parson—who in terror fled the country. Chase continued in the Continental Congress until 1778 and was appointed a member of almost every important committee of that body. He became the leader of his profession in Maryland, was appointed Chief Justice of the Criminal Court of Baltimore, and elected a member of the Maryland Convention, called to ratify the National Constitution. Thereafter, he was made Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State. In 1796, President Washington appointed Chase as Associate Justice of the National Supreme Court of which he was conceded to be one of the ablest members. (Dwight, 245-52.)

[510]See Plumer to his brother, Feb. 25, 1805, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.

[511]Maryland Historical Society Fund-Publication No. 24, p. 20. Burr told Key that "he must not appear as counsel with his loose coat on." (Plumer, Feb. 11, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)

[512]Adams:U.S.ii, 227-28. Bayard strongly urged Chase to have no counsel, but to defend himself. (Bayard to Harper, Jan. 30, 1804,Bayard Papers: Donnan, 159-60.)

[513]See Story's description of Martin three years later, Story to Fay, Feb. 16, 1808, Story,i, 163-64.Luther Martin well illustrates the fleeting nature of the fame of even the greatest lawyers. For two generations he was "an acknowledged leader of the American bar," and his preëminence in that noble profession was brightened by fine public service. Yet within a few years after his death, he was totally forgotten, and to-day few except historical students know that such a man ever lived.Martin began his practice of the law when twenty-three years of age and his success was immediate and tremendous. His legal learning was prodigious—his memory phenomenal.Apparently, Martin was the heaviest drinker of that period of heavy drinking men. The inexplicable feature of his continuous excesses was that his mighty drinking seldom appeared to affect his professional efficiency. Only once in his long and active career did intoxication interfere with his work in court. (Seeinfra, 586.)Passionate in his loves and hates, he abhorred Jefferson with all the ardor of his violent nature; and his favorite denunciation of any bad man was, "Sir! he is as great a scoundrel as Thomas Jefferson."For thirty years Martin was the Attorney-General of Maryland. He was the most powerful member of his State in the Convention that framed the National Constitution which he refused to sign, opposing the ratification of it in arguments of such signal ability that forty years afterward John C. Calhoun quarried from them the material for his famous Nullification speeches.When, however, the Constitution was ratified and became the supreme law of the land, Martin, with characteristic wholeheartedness, supported it loyally and championed the Administrations of Washington and Adams.He was the lifelong friend of the impeached justice, to whom he owed his first appointment as Attorney-General of Maryland as well as great assistance and encouragement in the beginning of his career. Chase and he were also boon companions, each filled with admiration for the talents and attainments of the other, and strikingly similar in their courage and fidelity to friends and principles. So the lawyer threw himself into the fight for the persecuted judge with all his astonishing strength.When, in his old age, he was stricken with paralysis, the Maryland Legislature placed a tax of five dollars annually on all lawyers for his support. After Martin's death the bench and bar of Baltimore passed a resolution that "we will wear mourning for the space of thirty days." (American Law Review,i, 279.)No biography of Martin has ever been written; but there are two excellent sketches of his life, one by Ashley M. Gould inGreat American Lawyers: Lewis,ii, 3-46; and the other by Henry P. Goddard in theMd. Hist. Soc. Fund. Pub. No. 24.

[513]See Story's description of Martin three years later, Story to Fay, Feb. 16, 1808, Story,i, 163-64.

Luther Martin well illustrates the fleeting nature of the fame of even the greatest lawyers. For two generations he was "an acknowledged leader of the American bar," and his preëminence in that noble profession was brightened by fine public service. Yet within a few years after his death, he was totally forgotten, and to-day few except historical students know that such a man ever lived.

Martin began his practice of the law when twenty-three years of age and his success was immediate and tremendous. His legal learning was prodigious—his memory phenomenal.

Apparently, Martin was the heaviest drinker of that period of heavy drinking men. The inexplicable feature of his continuous excesses was that his mighty drinking seldom appeared to affect his professional efficiency. Only once in his long and active career did intoxication interfere with his work in court. (Seeinfra, 586.)

Passionate in his loves and hates, he abhorred Jefferson with all the ardor of his violent nature; and his favorite denunciation of any bad man was, "Sir! he is as great a scoundrel as Thomas Jefferson."

For thirty years Martin was the Attorney-General of Maryland. He was the most powerful member of his State in the Convention that framed the National Constitution which he refused to sign, opposing the ratification of it in arguments of such signal ability that forty years afterward John C. Calhoun quarried from them the material for his famous Nullification speeches.

When, however, the Constitution was ratified and became the supreme law of the land, Martin, with characteristic wholeheartedness, supported it loyally and championed the Administrations of Washington and Adams.

He was the lifelong friend of the impeached justice, to whom he owed his first appointment as Attorney-General of Maryland as well as great assistance and encouragement in the beginning of his career. Chase and he were also boon companions, each filled with admiration for the talents and attainments of the other, and strikingly similar in their courage and fidelity to friends and principles. So the lawyer threw himself into the fight for the persecuted judge with all his astonishing strength.

When, in his old age, he was stricken with paralysis, the Maryland Legislature placed a tax of five dollars annually on all lawyers for his support. After Martin's death the bench and bar of Baltimore passed a resolution that "we will wear mourning for the space of thirty days." (American Law Review,i, 279.)

No biography of Martin has ever been written; but there are two excellent sketches of his life, one by Ashley M. Gould inGreat American Lawyers: Lewis,ii, 3-46; and the other by Henry P. Goddard in theMd. Hist. Soc. Fund. Pub. No. 24.

[514]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 160-61. The case to which Randolph refers was that of the United Statesvs.Thomas Logwood, indicted in April, 1801, for counterfeiting. Logwood was tried in the United States Circuit Court at Richmond during June, 1804. Marshall, sitting with District Judge Cyrus Griffin, presided. Notwithstanding Marshall's liberality, Logwood was convicted and Marshall sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment at hard labor. (Order Book No. 4, 464, Records, U.S. Circuit Court, Richmond.)

[515]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 163-65;Chase Trial, 18. Randolph disgusted the Federalists. "This speech is the most feeble—the most incorrect that I ever heard him make." (Plumer, Feb. 9, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)

[516]Two witnesses to the Baltimore incident, George Reed and John Montgomery, committed their testimony to memory as much "as ever a Presbyterian clergyman did his sermon—or an Episcopalian his prayer." (Plumer, Feb. 14, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)

[517]Seesupra, chap.i.

[518]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 203-05;Chase Trial, 36-37.

[519]Plumer, Feb. 11, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.

[520]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 200;Chase Trial, 35.

[521]Seesupra, chap.i.

[522]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 207. John Quincy Adams's description of all of the evidence is important and entertaining:"Not only the casual expressions dropped in private conversations among friends and intimates, as well as strangers and adversaries, in the recess of a bed-chamber as well as at public taverns and in stage coaches, had been carefully and malignantly laid up and preserved for testimony on this prosecution; not only more witnesses examined to points ofopinion, and called upon for discrimination to such a degree as to say whether the deportment of the Judge wasimperativeorimperious, but hours of interrogation and answer were consumed in evidence tolooks, tobows, to tones of voice and modes of speech—to prove the insufferable grievance that Mr. Chase had more than once raised a laugh at the expense of Callender's counsel, and to ascertain the tremendous fact that he had accosted theAttorney Generalof Virginiaby the appellation ofYoung Gentleman!!"If by thumbscrews, the memory of a witness trace back for a period of five years the features of the Judge's face, it could be darkened with a frown, it was to be construed into rude and contumelious treatment of the Virginia bar; if it was found lightened with a smile, 'tyrants in all ages had been notorious for their pleasantry.'"In short, sir, Gravity himself could not keep his countenance at the nauseating littlenesses which were resorted to for proof of atrocious criminality, and indignation melted into ridicule at the puerile perseverance with whichnothingswere accumulated, with the hope of makingsomethingby their multitude."All this, however, was received because Judge Chase would not suffer his counsel to object against it. He indulged his accusers with the utmost licence of investigation which they ever derived [sic], and contented himself with observing to the court that he expected to be judged upon thelegalevidence in the case." (J. Q. Adams to his father, March 8, 1805,Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford,iii, 112-13.)

[522]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 207. John Quincy Adams's description of all of the evidence is important and entertaining:

"Not only the casual expressions dropped in private conversations among friends and intimates, as well as strangers and adversaries, in the recess of a bed-chamber as well as at public taverns and in stage coaches, had been carefully and malignantly laid up and preserved for testimony on this prosecution; not only more witnesses examined to points ofopinion, and called upon for discrimination to such a degree as to say whether the deportment of the Judge wasimperativeorimperious, but hours of interrogation and answer were consumed in evidence tolooks, tobows, to tones of voice and modes of speech—to prove the insufferable grievance that Mr. Chase had more than once raised a laugh at the expense of Callender's counsel, and to ascertain the tremendous fact that he had accosted theAttorney Generalof Virginiaby the appellation ofYoung Gentleman!!

"If by thumbscrews, the memory of a witness trace back for a period of five years the features of the Judge's face, it could be darkened with a frown, it was to be construed into rude and contumelious treatment of the Virginia bar; if it was found lightened with a smile, 'tyrants in all ages had been notorious for their pleasantry.'

"In short, sir, Gravity himself could not keep his countenance at the nauseating littlenesses which were resorted to for proof of atrocious criminality, and indignation melted into ridicule at the puerile perseverance with whichnothingswere accumulated, with the hope of makingsomethingby their multitude.

"All this, however, was received because Judge Chase would not suffer his counsel to object against it. He indulged his accusers with the utmost licence of investigation which they ever derived [sic], and contented himself with observing to the court that he expected to be judged upon thelegalevidence in the case." (J. Q. Adams to his father, March 8, 1805,Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford,iii, 112-13.)

[523]This was the fourth member of the Marshall family upon whom offices were bestowed while Marshall was Secretary of State. (See vol.ii, 560, of this work.)

[524]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 251-62;Chase Trial, 65-69. "I was unable to give credence to his [Heath's] testimony." (Plumer, Feb. 12, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.) Although Heath's story was entirely false, it has, nevertheless, found a place in serious history.Marshall's brother made an excellent impression on the Senate. "His answers were both prompt & lucid—There was a frankness, a fairness & I will add a firmness that did him much credit. His testimony was [on certain points] ... a complete defense of the accused." (Ib.Feb. 15, 1805.)

Marshall's brother made an excellent impression on the Senate. "His answers were both prompt & lucid—There was a frankness, a fairness & I will add a firmness that did him much credit. His testimony was [on certain points] ... a complete defense of the accused." (Ib.Feb. 15, 1805.)

[525]Harvie's son, Jacquelin B. Harvie, married Marshall's daughter Mary. (Paxton:Marshall Family, 100.)

[526]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 262-67;Chase Trial, 71.

[527]Plumer, Feb. 16, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.

[528]Feb. 19, 1805,Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 354.Chase did not leave Washington, and was in court when some of the arguments were made. (See Chase to Hopkinson, March 10, 1805; Hopkinson MSS. in possession of Edward P. Hopkinson, Phila.)

[528]Feb. 19, 1805,Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 354.

Chase did not leave Washington, and was in court when some of the arguments were made. (See Chase to Hopkinson, March 10, 1805; Hopkinson MSS. in possession of Edward P. Hopkinson, Phila.)

[529]Feb. 13, 1805,Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 351.

[530]Ib.The motion to admit the public was carried by one vote only. (Plumer, Feb. 13, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)

[531]Feb. 13, 1805,Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 353.

[532]Feb. 20, 1805,ib.355.

[533]Cutler,ii, 183; alsoAnnals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 313-29;Chase Trial, 101-07.

[534]Plumer, Feb. 20, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.

[535]Cutler,ii, 183.

[536]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 329-53;Chase Trial, 107et seq.

[537]Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 355-56.

[538]Plumer, Feb. 21, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.

[539]Adams:U.S.ii, 231. Even Randolph praised him. (Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 640.)

[540]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 354-94;Chase Trial, 116-49.

[541]Feb. 21, 1805,Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 356."The effect on the auditory [was] prodigiously great." (Cutler,ii, 184.)"His argument ... was one of the most able ... I ever heard." (Plumer, Feb. 21, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)

[541]Feb. 21, 1805,Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 356.

"The effect on the auditory [was] prodigiously great." (Cutler,ii, 184.)

"His argument ... was one of the most able ... I ever heard." (Plumer, Feb. 21, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)

[542]Feb. 22, 1805,Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 356.

[543]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 394-413; see alsoChase Trial, 149-62; and Cutler,ii, 184.

[544]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 413-29;Chase Trial, 162-72.

[545]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 429-82;Chase Trial, 173et seq.

[546]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 483.

[547]Ib.484-87.

[548]See résumé of Franklin's indictment of the press in vol.i, 268-69, of this work.

[549]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 488;Chase Trial, *223.

[550]"Mr. Martin really possesses much legal information & a great fund of good humour, keen satire & poignant wit ... he certainly has talents." (Plumer, Feb. 23, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)

[551]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 489;Chase Trial, *224.

[552]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 556;Chase Trial, *205-44.

[553]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 560-62;Chase Trial, 237et seq.

[554]See Jefferson to Hay,infra, chap.viii.

[555]Seeinfra, chap.x.

[556]Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 358.

[557]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 582;Chase Trial, 237-43.

[558]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 583.This was an under-statement of the facts; for the first time the celebration of Washington's birthday was abandoned in the National Capital. (Plumer, 326.) Plumer says that this was done because the celebration might hurt Chase, "for there are senators who for the veriest trifles may be brought to vote against him." (Feb. 22, 1805, "Congress," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)

[558]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 583.

This was an under-statement of the facts; for the first time the celebration of Washington's birthday was abandoned in the National Capital. (Plumer, 326.) Plumer says that this was done because the celebration might hurt Chase, "for there are senators who for the veriest trifles may be brought to vote against him." (Feb. 22, 1805, "Congress," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)

[559]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 583-84;Chase Trial, 243-56.

[560]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 585-87.

[561]Rodney here refers to the Republican allegation that Chase tried to secure appointment as Chief Justice by flattering Adams through charges to juries, rulings in court, and speeches on the stump.

[562]John Jay to England and Oliver Ellsworth to France. (See vol.ii, 113, 502, of this work.)

[563]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 587-89.

[564]Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 359.

[565]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 583-641;Chase Trial, 243-56.

[566]Cutler announced it as "an outrageous, infuriated declamation, which might have done honor to Marat, or Robespierre." (Cutler,ii, 184.)

[567]Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 359.

[568]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 642;Chase Trial, 256.

[569]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 644;Chase Trial, 257.

[570]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 644-45;Chase Trial, 258.

[571]Seeinfra, chap.x.

[572]Seesupra, 196.

[573]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 651-52;Chase Trial, 266.

[574]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 641-62. John Quincy Adams notes in his diary that Randolph spoke for more than two hours "with as little relation to the subject matter as possible—without order, connection, or argument; consisting altogether of the most hackneyed commonplaces of popular declamation." Throughout, records Adams, there was "much distortion of face and contortion of body, tears, groans and sobs." (Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 359.)"His speech ... was devoid of argument, method or consistency—but was replete with invective & even vulgarity.... I never heard him deliver such a weak feeble & deranged harangue." (Plumer to his wife, Feb. 28, 1805, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)"After he sat down—he threw his feet upon the table—distorted his features & assumed an appearance as disgusting as his harangue." (Plumer, Feb. 27, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)

"His speech ... was devoid of argument, method or consistency—but was replete with invective & even vulgarity.... I never heard him deliver such a weak feeble & deranged harangue." (Plumer to his wife, Feb. 28, 1805, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)

"After he sat down—he threw his feet upon the table—distorted his features & assumed an appearance as disgusting as his harangue." (Plumer, Feb. 27, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)

[575]Seesupra, chaps.iiandiii;infra, chap.vi, and vol.iv, chap.i.

[576]"There was a vast concourse of people ... and great solemnity." (Cutler to Torrey, March 1, 1805, Cutler,ii, 193.) "The galleries were crowded—many ladies. I never witnessed so general & so deep an anxiety." (Plumer to his wife, March 1, 1805, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)

[577]Plumer, 323.

[578]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 665-69;Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 362-63.

[579]Ib.363.

[580]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 669. By this time Burr had changed to admiration the disapproval with which the Federalist Senators had, at first, regarded his conduct of the trial. "Mr. Burr has certainly, on the whole, done himself, the Senate, and the Nation honor by the dignified manner in which he has presided over this high and numerous court," testifies Senator Plumer, notwithstanding his deep prejudice against Burr. (Plumer, March 1, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)

[581]See Adams:U.S.ii, 243.

[582]See Plumer, 324;Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 371; Adams:John Randolph, 131-32, 152; Channing:Jeff. System, 120; Adams:U.S.ii, 243.

[583]Plumer here adds six years to Chase's age—an unusual inaccuracy in the diary of that born newspaper reporter.

[584]Plumer to his son, March 3, 1805, Plumer, 325.

[585]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 1213; and seeAnnual Report, Am. Hist. Assn. 1896,ii, 64; also Adams:U.S.ii, 240.

[586]Cutler,ii, 185.

[587]Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess. 1213; and see J. Q. Adams to his father, March 14, 1805,Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford,iii, 117.

[588]Jan. 30, 1805,Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams,i, 341.

[589]See Adams:U.S.ii, 243.

[590]Seeinfra, chap.x.

[591]Plumer, 325. Jefferson soon took Plumer into the Republican fold.

Back to Index Next