The Life of John Marshall Volume 3 of 4

st fall. Our affairs approach an i

impeachment of not only Mr. Chase but of all the

ial tyranny, as, I trust in God, will never be

er days have been worn out in the service of that

ives can only be protected by in

lliam Branch Giles[430] of Virginia stated one of the purposes of the Republicans in their determined attack on the Natio

up. The talk was of the approaching trial of Samuel Chase, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, whom the House had impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. Giles and Randolph were, "with excess

ges was "nothing more nor less than an attempt to establish an aristocratic despotism in themselve

f the House to impeach them, and of the Senate to remove them for giving such opinions, however honest or sincere they may have been in entertaining them." He held that the Senate, when trying an impeached officer, did not act a

party considered to be sufficient.[433] The National Judiciary was, in this manner, to be made responsive to the p

r dogmatical and peremptory." Not only must the aggressive and irritating Chase be stripped of his robes, but the same fate must fall upon "all other Judges of the Supreme Court exce

Republicans Marshall and the four Federalist Associate Justices. "The judges of the Supreme Court are all Federalists," wrote Pickering six weeks bef

t be removed; they are obnoxious unyielding men; & why should they remain to awe & embarrass the administration? Men of more flexible nerves can be found to succeed them. Our affairs seem to approach an important crisis."[440] The Federalists rightly

eclare an act of Congress unconstitutional," had "dared" to order Madison to show cause why he should not be compelled to do his legal duty. E

unyielding enemy than the Chief Justice. And he had shown by his management of the Supreme Court and by his opinion in Marbury vs. Madison, ho

gn their offices but they must resign their good names.... They will be obnoxious as long as they retain either. If they will neither die nor resign they give Mr J the trouble of correcting the procedure....

the soundness of the Nationalist theory. During the February term of the Supreme Court for the year 1804, that tribunal, in the case of the United States vs. Fisher,[445] was called upon to decide whether the United States was a preferred creditor of an insolvent, under the Bankruptcy Act of 1800, which Marshall

d giving the Nation preference as a creditor. On the contrary, Congress was expressly authorized "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the National Government." To say that "no law

s of Hamilton on that celebrated question.[447] The case could have been decided without such an expression from the court, but it presente

ion signed by the enraged Republicans of Alleghany County, Pennsylvania, had been sent to the Legislature of that State, demanding the impeachment of Alexander Addison; and almost simultaneously with the pass

ainst him and deposed him from the bench. With notable ability, Addison conducted his own defense. He made a powerful speech which is a classic of conservative philosophy.[449] But his a

istrict of New Hampshire.[451] This judge had been hopelessly insane for at least three years and, as one result of his mental and nervous malady, had become an incurable drunkard.[452] In this condition he had refused to hear witnesses for the Government in t

ideal opportunity to put into practice their theory that impeachment was unrestricted and might be applied to any officer whom, for any reason, two thirds of the Senate deemed undesirable. "If the facts of his denying an appeal & of his intoxication, as s

ade against having evidence and counsel to prove the man insane," records John Quincy Adams, "only from the fear, that if insanity should be proved, he cannot be convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors by acts of decisive madness."[457] Finally the determined Republicans proceeded to the trial of the insane judge for high crimes and misde

ght to be altered," he continued, "so that the President should be authorized to remove a Judge from office, on the address of t

yton of New Jersey denounced the whole proceeding as "a mere mockery of a trial."[461] Senator John Quincy Adams, in the flurry of debate, asserted that he should "speak until [his] mouth was stopped by force."[462] Senator Nicholas of Virginia shouted "Order! order! order!" w

hamber in order to avoid the balloting.[465] They would not adjudge an insane man to be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, but they were not yet independent enough to vote against their party.[466] This, however, di

In less than two months after Marshall had delivered the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Marbury vs. Madison, Justice Cha

tion of the federal judiciary ... and the recent change in our state constitution, by the establishing of universal suffrage, ... will ... take away

mischief which he feared "will rapidly progress, until peace and order, freedom and property, shall be destroyed.... Will justice be impartially administered by judges dependent on the legislature for the

s judicial tirade, forthwith savagely denounced Chase in the Baltimore American.[468] He demanded that the Justice

principles of our Constitution, and on the proceedings of a State, go unpunished? A

impler minds were oblivious, he was conscious of the uneasiness of Northern Republicans over ruthless impeachment and decide

s to have Chase's place on the Supreme Bench,[473] and this fact would put him at a disadvantage if he became the central figure in the fight against the aged Justice. The procurement of

he House, ex parte statements against him were collected, published in pamphlet form, and scattered throughout the country. To assure wider publicity all this "evidence" was printed

nce his appointment to the Supreme Bench. His conduct at the trials of Fries and Callender was set forth with tedious particularity: in Delaware he had stooped "to the level of an informer"; his charge to the grand jury at Baltimor

epublican plan would miscarry; Randolph's multifarious charges pleased those in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland who had first made them; they were so drawn as to lay a foundation for the assault which was to follow

peachment which, he said, "is nothing more than an enquiry, by the two Houses of Congress, whether the office of any public man might not be better filled by another." Ad

ent of the impeachment is already determined," wrote Bayard before the trial began.[480] Pickering was certain that Chase would be condemned-so would any man that the House mi

r. "Our public ... will be as tame as Mr. Randolph can desire," lamented Ames. "You may broil Judge Chase and eat him, or eat him raw;

urpose. Jefferson's wise adjustment of the greatest financial scandal in American history[483] came before the House during this interval; and fearless, honest, but impolitic John Randolph attacked the Administration's compromise of the Yazoo fraud with a ferocity all but insane in its violence. Literall

eader of our early history came to the trial. Moreover, Randolph had broken with the Administration and challenged Jefferson's hitherto un

mpeached by the House for high crimes and misdemeanors, to settle by the judgment it should render the fate of John Marshall as

st of the nation is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States, sitting as a Court of Impeachments, arti

on the bleak winter day in dismal, scattered, and quarreling Washington. An audience crowded the Senate Chamber almost to the point of suffocation. There were present not only the members of

AMUEL CHASE

est representatives, were on trial almost as much as their imprudent, rough, and outspoken fellow member of the Bench. It is not improbable that they were helping to di

."[488] At the beginning of the proceedings Chase had asked Marshall, who was then in Richmond, to write an account of what occurred at the trial of Callender, and Marshall promptly responded: "I instantly applied to my brother[489] & to Mr. Wickham[490] to state their recollection of the circumsta

ordinary ground for an impeachment. According to the antient doctrine a jury finding a verdict against the law of the case was liable to an attaint; &

modern doctrine of impeachment should yield to an appellate jurisdiction in the legislature. A reversal of those legal opinions deemed unsound by the legi

unded, seem still less to furnish cause for impeachment. But the little finge

much respect

rshall

tives to be the final judges of any judicial decision with which a majority of the House was dissatisfied! Had we not the evidence of Marshall's signature to a letter written in his well-known hand, it could not

ismal February day when he beheld Samuel Chase arraigned at the bar of the Senate of the United States. During the trial Marsh

Spencer Roane as Chief Justice when Marshall was ousted, and the certainty that this would be fatal to the execution of those fundamental principles of governm

He was more than justified in resorting to any honorable expedient to save the great office he held from occupancy by a resolute and resourceful foe

arren Hastings were still vivid in the minds of all, and in imitation of that spectacle, the Senate Chamber was now bedecked with impr

the United States. Three rows of benches, arranged in tiers, extended from the wall toward the center of the room; these were covered with green cloth and were

along the wall, and faced the crimson-covered places of the Senators. At either end of it were boxes. Comfortable seats

ent's chair to the doorway. On either side of this aisle were two stalls covered with blue cloth, as were also the chairs with

ton, and under indictment in two States, had resumed his duties as Vice-President. Nothing in the bearing of this playwright character indicated in the smallest degree that anything out of the ordinary had happened to him. The circumstance of

determined that Aaron Burr must be captured-at least conciliated. He could not be displaced as the presiding officer at the Chase impeachment trial; his rulings would be influential, perhaps decisive; the personal friendship and admiration of several

deed he had given the vacated judgeship to one of these witnesses. But such an example Jefferson well knew would have no effect upon Burr; even promises would avail nothing wi

morous against him because of his killing of Hamilton and an indictment of murder hanging over him in New Jersey, now fou

overnment of the Louisiana Territory, at the attractive city of New Orleans.[502] The members of the Cabinet became attentive to Burr. The President

o win the co?peration of the man who was to preside over the trial of Samuel Chase. Senator Giles drew a petition to the Governor of New Jersey

uninfluenced and impartial. Throughout the momentous trial the Vice-President was a model presiding officer. "He conducted with the dignity and impar

glish custom, which required prisoners to stand when on trial in court, ordered it to be taken away.[505] Up

an accumulation of fat which his generous manner of living had produced. Also he was afflicted with an agonizing gout, with which it seems so many of "the fathers" were cursed. His face was broad and massive, his

Hail Columbia; or, The President's March"; Philip Barton Key, brother of the author of "The Star-Spangled Banner";[511] Robert Goodloe Harper, one of the Federalist leaders in Congre

artin of Maryland-of medium height, broad-shouldered, near-sighted, absent-minded, shabbily attired, harsh of voice, now sixty-one years old, with gr

"Sir," said Randolph, "in the famous case of Logwood,[514] whereat the Chief Justice of the United States presided, I was present, being one of the grand jury who found a true bill against him.... The government was as deeply in

much of that testimony was of a very questionable nature, none of it was declared inadmissable." Marshall suffered it "to go to the jury, who were left to judge of its weight and credibility"; no

did not avail himself of the previous and great discoveries in criminal law, of this respondent [Chase]"; Marshall "admitted the prisoner's testimony to go to the jury"; Marshall "never thought it his right or his duty

RAN

the condemnation of his associate, and for his own undoing if Chase should be convicted. Randolph denounced "the monstrous pretensio

not in all State courts. "It is indictable nowhere for him to omit to do his duty, to refuse to hold a court.

rs "confidently expect on his [Chase's] conviction.... We shall bring forward ... such a specim

save time; had withdrawn the paper and destroyed it when he found Fries's counsel resented the court's precipitate action; and, finally, had repeatedly urged them to proceed with the de

ad impression on the Senate by his eagerness.[519] It developed that the whole attitude of Chase had been one of sarcastic contempt; and that Callender's counsel were more piqued by the laughter of the spectat

n ironical smile: "It is contended ... that the book ought to be copied verbatim et literatim, I wonder, ... that they do not contend for punctuatim too."[520] The audience laughed. Ch

of Caroline testified, in "a very high degree imperative, satirical, and wi

attorney and a perfect stranger to Chase, had sworn that Chase, in his presence, had asked the United States Marshal, David M. Randolph, "if he had any of those creatures or people called democrats on the

of his own politics." David M. Randolph then testified that he had never seen Heath in the Judge's chambers, that Chase "never at any time or place" said anything to hi

serving on the jury because "his mind was completely made up ... and whatever the evidence might be, he should find the traverser not guilty." When Marshall told this to the court official, the latter said that Harvie must apply to the Judge, because he "was watched," and "to

ar and the bench which do not always occur at trials.... The counsel appeared ... to wish to argue to the jury that the Sedition Law was unconstitutional. Mr. C

rrect in point of law," and again the Judge "stopped him"; that "Mr. Hay still went on and made some political observations; Ju

s, he immediately told them so and stopped them short." This "began early in the proceedings and increased. On the part of the judge it see

y may change or confirm the opinion of the court, when there is any doubt entertained." But there was "no positive rule on the subject and the course pursued by the court will depend upon circumstances: Where the judge believes th

ed that he ought to be asked what Chase's conduct was and not what he thought of it. Senator William Cocke of Tennessee said the question was improper, and Randolph offered to withdraw it. "No!" exclaimed Chase's counsel, "we are willing to

ounsel persisted in arguing the question of the constitutionality of the Sedition Law, in which they were constantly repressed by Judge Chase. Judge Chase checked Mr. Hay whenever he came to that point, and aft

courts to hear counsel upon the validity of rulings "not solemnly pronounced," and "by no means usual in Virginia to try a man for an offense

ether my recollection of the term is derived from expressions used in court, or from the frequent mention since made of them." But, remarked Marshall, having thus adroitly placed the burden on the irresponsible shoulde

Marshall's manner affected the Senate most unfavorably. "John Marshall is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Cou

ution-too much fear-too much cunning-He ought to

hat dignified frankness which his high office required did not appear. A cunni

t membership of the Supreme Court. His understanding of the Republican purpose, his letter to Chase, and his manner on the stand at the tri

sed, the election returns were read and counted, and Aaron Burr "declared Thomas Jefferson and George Clinton to be duly elected to the respective offices of President and

gia spoke first. His remarks were "chiefly declamatory."[532] He said that the conduct of Chase exhibited that species of oppression which puts accused citizens "at the mercy of arbitrary and overbeari

ffects that his conduct ... may have on society." He analyzed the official deeds of Chase by which "the whole community seemed shocked.... Future generations are interested in the event."[536] He spoke

s have been worn out in the service of that country which now degrades him." The case was "of infinite importance," truly declared the youthful attorney. "The faithful, the scrutinizing historian, ... without fear or favor" will render the final judgment. The House managers were following the British precedent i

wo years." Could a National judge be impeached merely for "error, mistake, or indiscretion"? Absurd! Such action could be taken only for "an indicta

n. Had any other "high crimes and misdemeanors" been proved or even stated against him? He could not be impeached for ordinary offenses, but only for "high crimes and high misdemeanors." Those were legal and technical terms, "we

d ... to scan and punish paltry errors and indiscretions, too insignificant to have a name in the penal code, too paltry for the n

ny judge be firm, unbiased, and independent if he might at any time be impeached "on the mere suggestions of caprice ...

e permanent principle, some settled establishment. The want of this is the great deficiency in republican institutions." In the American Government an independent, perm

ca 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

le speech. He analyzed, with painstaking minuteness, the complaints against his client, and cleverly turned to Chase's advantage the conduct of Marshall in the Logwood case.[5

ted lawyer. If he "only appeared in defense of a friend," said Martin, he would not be so gravely concerned; but the case was plainly of highest possible importance, no

n as impeachable offenses, were also indictable. It was the same with "other high crimes and misdemeanors," the only additional acts for which impeachment was provided. To be sure, a judge might do deeds for which he could be in

its passage. Yet if an officer might, years after the event, be impeached, convicted, and punished for conduct perfectly legal at the time, "could the officers o

nt charged? Even so, this was "rather a violation of the principles of politeness, than the principles of law; rather the want of decorum, tha

rt and the Government." Had not Hay just testified that he entertained "no hopes of convincing the court, and scarcely the faintest expectation of inducing the jury to believe that the sedition law was unconstitutional";

," why had not the witness who told of it, "given us a fac simile of it?" The Senate then could have judged of "the propriety" of the bow. "But it seems this bow, together with the 'non sequitur' entirely disc

that Wirt was actually thirty years old and a widower. Perhaps Chase did not know "of these circumstances"; still, "if he h

overnment of laws. But how can it be such, unless the laws, while they exist, are sacredly and impartially, without regard to popularity, carried into execution?" Only independent jud

pt two glasses of wine and water"; he said he had not even breakfaste

law] as a wholesome and necessary restraint" upon the licentiousness of the press.[547] Martin then quoted with telling effect from Franklin's denunciation of newspapers.[548] "Franklin, himself a printer," had been "as great an a

he bludgeon, the sword or the pistol, they will resort for that purpose." Yet Chase stood impeached for having, as

er it may sound elsewhere in the United States, I cannot apprehend it will be considered very offensive, even from the mouth of a judge on this side of the Susquehanna;-to the southward of that river it is in familiar use ...

tegrity of the whole National Judicial establishment was in peril, and that impeachment was being used as

r impeachment-the refusal of a judge to hold court-Harper came near, however, making a fatal admission. This, said Harper, would justify impeachment, although perhaps not an indictment. Most of h

t Chase's speech from the bench in Baltimore amounted to. Did his office take from a judge "the liberty of speech which belongs to every citizen"? Judges often made political speeches on the stum

nd juries, beginning with the famous appeal to the people to fight for independen

nal judge of Samuel Chase. Warren Hastings had been acquitted; "but is there any who hears me, that believes he was innocent?" The judgment of the Senate involved infinitely more than the fortunes of Chase

osecution, but a mere inquest of office.... If declarations of this kind have been made, in the name of the Managers, I here discl

doned the Republican position-and at a moment when Harper had all but admitted it to be sound. What could this mean but that the mighty onslaughts of Marti

y's theory upon which Chase had been impeached and thus far tried, ignored the subject entirely, or remaine

"It is possible," said Nicholson, "that the day may arrive when a President of the United States ... may endeavor to influence [Congress] by holding out threats or inducements to them.... The

per on which the reporters transcribed them. Every Senator knew how patronage and all forms of Executive inducement and coercion had been used by the Administration in the passage of most important measures-the Judiciary repeal, the Pickering im

which he could be bribed, the promotions by which he could be rewarded. The influence of the British Ministry over the judges has been "too flagrant to be mistaken." For example, in Ireland "an overruling influence has crumbled [an independent judiciary] into ru

of a high-handed President, in order to win the preferments he had to offer. Already "some of our judges have been elevated to places of h

essive ... a trial of the first importance, because of the first impression; ... a trial ... whose novelty and magnitude have excited so much interest ...

ith heartfelt pleasure and honest pride"; and he warned them not to take as a precedent the case of Warren Hastings, "that destroyer of the people of A

xcesses [of Samuel Chase].... In the dark catalogue of criminal enormities, perhaps few are to be found of deeper dye" than those named in the articles of impeachment. "The independence of the Judiciary, the political tocsin of the day, and the alarm bell of the night, has been rung through every change in our ears.... T

ary."[562] With what result? Had judges stood aloof from politics-or had they "united in the Io triumphe which the votaries and idolators of power have sung to those who were seated in the car of Government? Have they

d no example." After passing through many "citadels" and "Scean gates," and other forms of rhetorical architecture, he finally discovered Chase

or," and that the Chase impeachment was "a criminal prosecution." For parts of two days[564] Rodney examined every phase of the charges in a distracting mixture of high-flown language, scattered lear

usual time.[567] Sick as he was, without his notes (which he had lost), Randolph nevertheless made the best argument for the prosecution. Wasting no time, he took up the theory of impeachment upon which, he said, "the wildest opinions have been advanced"-for instance, "that an offense, to be impea

t a short session, the President should keep back until the last moment all bills passed within the previous ten days, as the Constitution authorized him to do, so that it would be a physical impossi

ce?... Today, haughty, violent, imperious; tomorrow, humble, penitent and submissive.... Is this a character to dispense law and justice to this nation? No, Sir!" Ra

e politically experienced Chief Justice conciliated the House managers in the manner that had so exas

iversal practice of our courts." On this point "what said the Chief Justice of the United States," on whose evidence Randolph said he specially relied? "He never knew such a case [to] occur before. He never heard

e? And yet in all his extensive reading, his long and extensive practice, in the many trials of which he has been spectator, and the yet greater number at which he has assisted, he had n

or the high station that he fills, eminent as it is." And he recited the substance of Marshall's testimony on this point. Consider his description of the bearing of Chase toward counsel! "I again ask you, what said the Chief

was never fully known until he was raised to the bench ... uttered not one syllable that could prejudice the defense of the prisoner." Once more he contrasted the judicial manners and rulings of Marshall wit

ad kept him to his task, he said. "In a little time and I will dismiss you to the suggestions of your own consciences. My weakness and want of ability preve

of Representatives and of all the people of the United States, to exorcise from our Courts the baleful spirit of party, to g

unal. The fate of the Supreme Court, the character of the National Judiciary, the career of John Marshall, depended upon it. Even union or disunion was involved; for if Chase should be conv

Senate Chamber.[576] Down the narrow passageway men were seen bearing a couch on which lay Senator Uriah Tracy of Connec

e and commit to prison the first person who makes the sm

the first article of im

muel Chase, the respondent, guilty of high crimes a

responded John

conviction. The auditors were breathless, the Chamber filled with the atmosphere of suspense. It was the first open brea

hn Gaillard, Republican S

from the very next Senator whose name Aaron Burr pronounce

muel Chase guilty of the high crimes and misde

gui

the first article, nine Republicans alig

s; on the fourth, fourteen Senators responded "Guilt

st vote with his party brethren from the North-he may have thought thus to influence them on the one really strong charge against the accused Justice. If so, his stratagem was futile. The five

: "It appears that there is not a constitutional majority of votes finding Samuel Chase, Esq. guilty of any one article. It therefore become

onvict. At their strongest the Republicans had been able to muster less than four fifths of their entire strength. Six of their number-the N

y was, for a period, rendered independent. For the first time in five years, the Federalist members of the Nation's highest tribunal could go about their duties without fear

to his son. "The venerable judge whose head bears the frost of seventy winters,[583] is honorably acquitted

he scene of defeat, he flew to the floor of the House. There he offered an amendment to the Constitution providing that the Presid

ollowed with a proposal so to amend the Constitution that

ohn Quincy Adams, Senator Jackson of Georgia, even before the trial, had spoken "slightingly both of

rgia land policy.[590] The great politician's cup of disappointment, which the acquittal of Chase had filled, was also sweetened by the knowledge that Republican restlessness in the Northern States would be quieted; the Federalists who were ready, on other grounds, to come

e returned, his courage restored. He calmly awaited the hour when the wisdom of events should call upon

TNO

who resigned in order that Giles might be sent to the Senate. In December the Legislature elected him for the f

, Memoirs, J. Q. A.

. Memoirs, J. Q. A.

pecially Plumer, Jan. 5, 1804, "

e, 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

isterial leader in the Senate." (Plumer to Th

he whole party enlisted under Mr. Jefferson's banners." (Picker

illiam Moore, resigned. Johnson was a stanch Jeffersonian when appointed.

emphasis on Giles's avowal. His stateme

, March 8, 1805, Writings

804, N.E. Federalism: Adams, 344; Lo

n, Jan. 14, 1803, Pl

t, Feb. 12, 1802, Baya

ystem, 119-20; Adams: U.S. ii,

r, Feb. 11, 1804, Pl

infra, 1

Cranch,

. ii, 481-82,

. ii, 71-74,

ctrine of implied powers; and that occasion produced one of Marshall's greatest opinions-in the judgment

er things, he pleaded for the independence of the Judiciary, asserted that it was their exclusive province to decide upon the constitutionality o

entatives on January 11, 1802. On March 23, 1802, that body transmitted articles of impeachment to the

ed a "letter and affidavits" setting forth Pickering's conduct on the bench in the case of the ship Eliza, and suggested that

use of the commission by him of "high crimes and misdemeanors," and, though a f

Cutter, Joshua Brackett, Edward St. Loe Live

rburne, Thomas Chadbourne, and

duties of his office, the circuit judges should name one of their members to fill his place. (See Annals, 6th Cong. 2d Sess. 1545.) This very thing had been d

, 1804, "Congress,"

8th Cong. 1s

J. Q. A.: Ada

en settled ... out of court. And this is the w

o dictate to the Senate how they are to proceed; and th

18, 1803, P

, 8th Cong.

Adams, i, 302-04, for a vivid

0, 1804, "Congress,"

orth river will manage their own affairs in their own way; ... and that the sound part will separate from the corrupt." (Plumer to Morse, March 10, 1804,

ey and Samuel White of Delaware, Federalists, also withdrew. (Annals, 8th Cong. 1st Sess. 366.) And see Memoirs, J. Q. A.: Adams, i, 308

ng to offend them, he obtained & has taken a leave of absence." (Plumer to Morse, March 10, 1804, Plum

"Congress," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.) Senator Franklin of North Carolina was then chosen President pro tem. and presided

the proceedings to be "printed in the Appendix to the Jo

Act. "The demon of party governed the decision. All who condemned were Jeffersonians, and all who pronounced the accus

ld reflect on what a slender tenure Judges hold their offices whose political sentiments are

, Appendix, 61-62; also see Ann

June 1

hase Trial,

Master: U.S.

, May 13, 1803, Jefferson Wr

Macon, 187-88. Macon seriously doubted the expediency and legali

Dodd,

June 22, 1806, Old

ed 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 direct

cles of impeachment see Annals, 8th Co

lvania, who sat with Chase during the trial of Fries. (Annals, 8th Cong. 1st Sess. 823-24, 850, 873-74.) But his name was dropped becaus

ters, complaining of the conduct of his judicial associate. "If I am to be immolated let it be with som

her, March 14, 1805, Writing

4, Memoirs, J. Q.

lumer MSS. Lib. Cong.; and see Plumer to

, Jan. 30, 1804, Bayar

14, 1804, Lodge: Cabot, 450; a

ight, Jan. 20, 1

one considers the comparative wealth and population of the country at the times ot

the Yazoo fraud and Marshall's opinion

he trial of Judge Pickering. See

ee Plum

nning: U.

James M. Marshall,

Marshall. See

f the Richmond bar and one o

pra, chap. i

1 Kings,

e, Jan. 23, 1804, Etti

e infra,

supra, cha

he arrangements ... for the trial." (Plumer t

Cong. 2d Sess. 100

Norris, Nov. 7,

e infra,

father, Jan. 5, 1805, Writi

kering. Sherburne was appointed Judge [in Pickering's place]; Steele, District Attorney; McCleary, Marshal; and Shannon, Clerk of the Court

9-30; and see Ad

, J. Q. A.: Adams, i, 317-18

umer to Thompson, Dec. 23, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.;

, 360; also Ada

first day I have seen nothing of partiality." (Cutler to Torrey, March 1, 1

remarkably testy-he acts more of the tyrant-is impatient, passionate-scolds-he is in a r

ut ... Mr. Burr said he wished to inform the Senate of

a witness was under examination walked between him & the

time when the President had retired from the chair.

o so-he was faint-but he disturbed nobody-He never wo

n cake, for an adjournment. Burr told Wright he was not in order-

ehavior!" (Ib. Feb. 12, 1805; also ib. Jan. 2, 1805.) Burr was sharply criticized by t

Sheafe, Jan. 180

Cong. 2d Sess. 9

of the Declaration o

States, 1690-1872, 214; and see Story t

tenderness of heart; and above all in intellect," he was "the living, I had almost s

ter 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 joi

assembled during the winter of 1774. He was re?lected the following year, and was foremost in urging the measures of armed defense that ended in the appointment of Washington as Commander-i

ee 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. Thereafte

brother, Feb. 25, 1805

Burr told Key that "he must not appear as counsel with his loose

se to have no counsel, but to defend himself. (Bayard t

rtin three years later, Story to Fa

ledged leader of the American bar," and his pre?minence in that noble profession was brightened by fine public service. Yet within

ears of age and his success was immediate and tremendous

f his continuous excesses was that his mighty drinking seldom appeared to affect his professional efficiency

he ardor of his violent nature; and his favorite denunciation of an

n that framed the National Constitution which he refused to sign, opposing the ratification of it in arguments of such sign

w of the land, Martin, with characteristic wholeheartedness, supported

ent 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

lars annually on all lawyers for his support. After Martin's death the bench and bar of Baltimore passe

hes of his life, one by Ashley M. Gould in Great American Lawyers: Lewis, ii, 3

Logwood was tried in the United States Circuit Court at Richmond during June, 1804. Marshall, sitting with District Judge Cyrus Griffin, presided. Notwithstanding Marshal

the Federalists. "This speech is the most feeble-the most incorrect that I

ed their testimony to memory as much "as ever a Presbyterian clergyman did his sermon-o

e supra,

ng. 2d Sess. 203-05;

1, 1805, "Diary," Pl

Cong. 2d Sess. 200

e supra,

n Quincy Adams's description of all of th

this prosecution; not only more witnesses examined to points of opinion, and called upon for discrimination to such a degree as to say whether the deportment of the Judge was imperative or imperious, but hours of interrogation and answer were consumed in evidence to looks, to bows, to t

ace, it could be darkened with a frown, it was to be construed into rude and contumelious treatment of the Virg

e resorted to for proof of atrocious criminality, and indignation melted into ridicule at the puerile p

the utmost licence of investigation which they ever derived [sic], and contented himself with observing to the court that he expecte

ly upon whom offices were bestowed while Marshall was

to his [Heath's] testimony." (Plumer, Feb. 12, 1805, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.) Althou

lucid-There was a frankness, a fairness & I will add a firmness that did him much credit. His

rvie, married Marshall's daughter M

ong. 2d Sess. 262-6

6, 1805, "Diary," Pl

5, Memoirs, J. Q.

the arguments were made. (See Chase to Hopkinson, March 10, 18

5, Memoirs, J. Q.

as carried by one vote only. (Plumer, Feb.

5, Memoirs, J. Q.

. 20, 180

Annals, 8th Cong. 2d Sess.

0, 1805, "Diary," Pl

utler,

g. 2d Sess. 329-53; C

J. Q. A.: Ada

1, 1805, "Diary," Pl

en Randolph praised him. (Ann

ng. 2d Sess. 354-94;

5, Memoirs, J. Q.

ory [was] prodigiously g

ble ... I ever heard." (Plumer, Feb. 21

5, Memoirs, J. Q.

s. 394-413; see also Chase Tri

ng. 2d Sess. 413-29;

g. 2d Sess. 429-82; C

, 8th Cong.

Ib.

s indictment of the press in

Cong. 2d Sess. 488

fund of good humour, keen satire & poignant wit ... he certainly h

Cong. 2d Sess. 489

ong. 2d Sess. 556;

g. 2d Sess. 560-62; C

rson to Hay, in

e infra,

, J. Q. A.: A

ong. 2d Sess. 582;

, 8th Cong.

National Capital. (Plumer, 326.) Plumer says that this was done because the celebration might hurt Chase, "for there are se

ng. 2d Sess. 583-84;

8th Cong. 2d

ied to secure appointment as Chief Justice by flattering Adams thro

iver Ellsworth to France. (See v

8th Cong. 2d

, J. Q. A.: A

ng. 2d Sess. 583-641

furiated declamation, which might have done hon

, J. Q. A.: A

Cong. 2d Sess. 642

Cong. 2d Sess. 644

ong. 2d Sess. 644-4

e infra,

ee supr

ong. 2d Sess. 651-5

the subject matter as possible-without order, connection, or argument; consisting altogether of the most hackneyed commonplaces of popular declamati

th invective & even vulgarity.... I never heard him deliver such a weak feeble &

his features & assumed an appearance as disgusting as his hara

ii and iii; infra, chap.

rch 1, 1805, Cutler, ii, 193.) "The galleries were crowded-many ladies. I never witnessed s

Plumer

d Sess. 665-69; Memoirs,

] Ib

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

Adams: U.S

, i, 371; Adams: John Randolph, 131-32, 152; Ch

ase's age-an unusual inaccuracy in the

is son, March 3,

and see Annual Report, Am. Hist. Assn.

utler,

d see J. Q. Adams to his father, March 14

5, Memoirs, J. Q.

Adams: U.S

e infra,

erson soon took Plumer