they have used to exclude this system entirely from the practical operation of the government, that the constitution itself should be made the instrument of its introduction, and its perma nent, irrevocable establishment? And this too at the moment of an expiring administration; when the passions of men just parting from power, wore breaking down every impediment which stood in the way of attaining their ob ject! Upon the whole, therefore, it appears, that this doctrine of the irrepealability of laws derives no consideration from the consequences which naturally flow from it.

Having exhausted so great a portion of the time and attention of the committee, in discussing the constitutional question, which has been made the cardinal point in the debate, I propose to confine myself to very few observations upon the expediency of the contemplated repeal. I take it for granted, that the former judicial system was competent to the discharge of all the judicial business in the United States; but if that should be denied, I think it demon

it passed in the negative-yeas, thirteen-nays, seventeen. I observe among the nays, the names of Mr. Green, of Rhode Island, and Mr. Read, of South Carolina. Both these gentlemen received appointments in virtue of the promotion of judges under this law. If these gentlemen had voted on the opposite side of the question, the law would never have been in existence. I mention this circumstance, not to impugn the motives of any gentleman, but to demonstrate the temptation held out to the members of the legislature, under the doctrine contended for against the repeal of this law. The refusal of the present President to correct what was called a mistake in Mr. Green's appointment, having excited some clamor, it is necessary to put this subject in a correct point of view. It seems, that in filling up Mr. Green's commission, the word "circuit," instead of the word "district," was inserted, it is presumed, by mistake. If the commission was intended for the circuit court, it was a breach of the constitution, in its most obvious letter. If it was intended for the district court, it was void "abstrable from the document before the commitinitio;" because, at the date of the commission, tee. The gentleman from Delaware, Mr. Bayno vacancy had happened, and the President's ard, has intimated a doubt whether the Presiright to appoint depended on that precedent dent acted correctly, in favoring us with the condition, and he, therefore, in making the ap- document. I shall only observe in reply, that pointment, attempted to exercise a power he the constitution imposes a duty upon the Presi did not possess. It must be obvious to every dent, from time to time, to give to Congress gentleman, that Mr. Green's accepting the com- information of the state of the Union, and remission, under all the incidents attending the commend to their consideration, such measures case, could furnish but a negative recommenda- as he shall judge necessary and expedient. The tion of Mr. Green, in his application for that or number of suits in the courts of the United any other appointment. Upon a review of the States must always be very small, from the history of the law in question, according to the limited objects of their jurisdiction; this will doctrine of its advocates, the temptation to the appear by reading the second section of the third legislature to make permanent, irrevocable pro- article of the constitution, limiting their jurisvision for themselves, must be obvious to every diction. The whole expense of the existing impartial observer. If, when a judicial estab-system is one hundred and thirty-seven thousand lishment be once made, it becomes irrevocable, dollars, of which forty thousand or fifty thouhow easy would it be for a legislature, com- sand dollars may be attributable to the new bined with the executive, to compensate them-system; the estimates differing between these selves for the loss of the confidence of their constituents, by following the example before us? By erecting a new tier of judges, holding out to them additional emoluments, and by filling up the vacancies, occasioned by their promotion, with the members of the legislature.

This operation would be most likely to take place when the representatives had lost the confidence of their constituents, and of course less likely to be influenced by considerations of public good. Again, sir, the sinecure system thus established, would have the advantage of all other similar systems existing in the world; because, if in other countries the sinecure system has become oppressive to the people, they have the consolation to recollect, that the evil may be lessened by the competent authority; but, according to the doctrine, upon which the system is bottomed in the United States, no remedy can be applied to the mischief, by the union of all the responsible agents of the people. How, sir, would the framers of our constitution lament, after all the care and circumspection

two sums. Whether the expense be estimated, either according to the service to be rendered, or by comparison with any other system, it appears to me to be enormous. I have examined the document before us, by way of ascertaining the relative view of expense and service, and also the competency of the former system to the discharge of the business. I would not, however, be responsible for precise clerical accuracy, in my addition, which has also been deemed a subject worthy of criticism against the President of the United States. But if it be within twenty-five per centum of being correct, it will demonstrate, first, that the former courts were competent to the business; second, that the number of causes bears no proportion to the expense of the institution.

I will present to the view of the committee, the whole number of causes instituted at the respective sessions of the courts, from the spring of 1796 to the spring of 1801. I have fixed upon the year 1796, because the business began then to increase under the influence of the British treaty.

In all the circuit courts of the United States, except Maryland and Tennessee, the whole number of causes, of every description, instituted in the spring of 1796, was two hundred and ninety-four; fall, one hundred and ninetytwo-1797, spring, four hundred and eighty-one; fall, three hundred and ninety-seven-1798, spring, three hundred and twenty-five; fall, three hundred and ninety-seven-1799, spring, seven hundred and three, exclusive of ninetyeight criminal prosecutions in Pennsylvania; fall, four hundred and fifty-five-1800, spring, four hundred and fifty-one, seventy criminal prosecutions in Pennsylvania; fall, three hundred and fifty-five-1801, spring, three hundred and fifty. Making the common calculation of suits settled between the parties without trial, dismissions, abatements, &c., &c., and it will appear, that the whole number of judgments against solvent persons, would hardly compensate the expense of the institution. It also appears, that the number of causes left to be tried, could easily be decided by the six former judges.

Upon looking over the number of suits in the eastern circuit, it appears to me strange, that the members representing that part of the country should insist upon increasing the expense of the system, when the courts have there scarcely any business to attend to; and that gentlemen in the southern States, where the business is greater, should be willing to lessen the expense. I never heard the smallest complaint in the State I represent, respecting the incompetency of the former courts to discharge the business in that State. I believe they have always gone through the docket, whenever they attended, and as far as my own observations go, that is the fact. It appears strange to me, that the new courts and new expenses should be called for in other parts of the United | States, when the old courts are competent to the business in that State, where the business has been considerably more than in any other State, although it is now very much declined, and probably will decline still more. In the courts of Maine, West Pennsylvania, West Virginia and West Tennessee, no suit at all had been instituted in June last.

Under the view of the subject thus presented, I consider the late courts as useless and unnecessary, and the expense, therefore, is to me highly objectionable. I do not consider it in the nature of a compensation, for there is no equivalent rendition of service. I cannot help considering it as a tribute for past services-as a tribute for the zeal displayed by these gentlemen in supporting principles which the people have denounced. I think the federal maxim

always was millions for defense, not a cent for tribute." I cannot consent to tax the people even one cent, as a tribute to men who disrespect their principles.

Another objection I have to the new organization of the courts, is, their tendency to produce a gradual demolition of State courts, by mutiplying the number of courts, increasing their jurisdiction, making bonds or obligatory bills assignable, with the privilege of bringing suits in the name of the assignee, &c., &c., or, as gentlemen say, bringing federal justice to every man's door; the State courts will be ousted of their jurisdiction, which I think by no means a desirable event. Under this consideration alone, and under the conviction I feel of the inutility of the courts, I shall vote for the repeal.

Upon the whole view of the subject, feeling the firmest conviction, that there is no constitutional impediment in the way of repealing the act in question, upon the most fair and candid interpretation of the constitution; believing, that principles advanced in opposition, go directly to the destruction of the fundamental principle of the constitution, the responsibility of all public agents to the people; that they go to the establishment of a permanent corporation of individuals invested with ultimate, censorial and controlling power over all the departments of the government, over legislation, execution and decision, and irresponsible to the people; believing that these principles are in direct hostility with the great principle of representative government; believing that the courts, formerly established, were fully competent to the business they had to perform, and that the present courts are useless, unnecessary and expensive; believing, that the Supreme Court has heretofore discharged all the duties assigned to it, in less than one month in the year, and that its duties could be performed in half that time; considering the compensations of the judges to be amongst the highest given to any of the highest officers of the United States, for the services of the whole year; considering the compensations of all the judges greatly exceeding the services assigned to them, as well as considering all the circumstances attending the substitution of the new system for the old one, by increasing the number of judges, and compensations, and lessening their duties by the distribution of the business into a greater number of hands, &c.—whilst acting under these impressions, I shall vote against the motion now made for striking out the first section of the repealing bill,

EDWARD LIVINGSTON.

THIS distinguished diplomatist and civilian was born at Clermont, Livingston Manor, New York, in the year 1764. He attended school at Albany, and afterward at Esopus, in Ulster county, where he continued until the destruction of that village, by the British, in 1777. From that place he removed to Hurley, a few miles southwest of Kingston, and, after spending two years in diligent study, entered the junior class at Princeton College. On graduating in 1781, he devoted his energies to the profession of the law. In his preparatory studies he became thoroughly versed in the principles of common and civil law, and entering upon practice, he soon rose into fame. From this time until he was elected to the lower House of Congress, in 1794, he was continually and laboriously engaged in the duties of his profession, with the exception of the time he spent in the New York Convention, for the adoption of the Federal Constitution.

In Congress, Mr. Livingston became one of the most celebrated members of the republican, or democratic party. A few days after he had taken his seat, he called the attention of the House to the then existing provisions of the criminal code of the United States, and endeavored, though at that time without effect, to reform their sanguinary character, and adapt them more justly to the nature and quality of offences. He introduced, and finally carried, several laws for the protection and relief of American seamen left by accident or misfortune on foreign shores. He warmly advocated the establishment and gradual increase of the navy, and he supported the existing government, though opposed to its general policy, in every measure which was necessary to sustain the honor, or protect the rights of the country.*

The period at which Mr. Livingston entered Congress was important. The people of the United States had just finished the struggle for Independence, by adopting the Federal Government. "Washington had been selected to administer that government; and around him were gathered the tried spirits who, either in the council or the field, had assisted him in the mighty work of Revolution. The constitution, binding free and sovereign States in an indissoluble league, after long anxiety and deliberation, was about to be tried. Its strength and its weaknesses, its tendencies whether for good or for evil, were soon to develop themselves in practical operation. Parties, taking their principles from the bent of their dispositions toward a stronger government or a stronger people, were already formed." At the head of one stood Thomas Jefferson, and at the head of the other was Alexander Hamilton. Livingston embraced the cause of the former and entered with enthusiasm into the support of his measures. Conceiving the treaty of 1794 to be disadvantageous to the American people, he opposed it. "I took on myself," said he, "for the first time in my whole representative career, to disregard the wish of my constituents. I attacked the treaty, and spared no effort to prevent its adoption. The issue justified the line of conduct I had held. Enlightened by the discussion and by the press, my constituents voted me their thanks for the course I had pursued.”+

National Portrait Gallery. Article Edward Livingston.

+ See Democratic Review, vols. 8 and 9, to which the Editor is indebted for much of the material of this sketch.

Mr. Livingston continued in Congress until the accession of Mr. Jefferson to the presidency. At that time he declined a re-election and determined to devote himself entirely to the practice of his profession. Not long after, however, he was elevated to the office of United States Attorney for New York, and in the year 1803, was chosen mayor of the city. The latter office he held two years, during which time he displayed the greatest industry, and manifested a zealous interest in the welfare of the people. About the time he entered upon the discharge of the duties of the mayoralty, the yellow fever broke out in New York with great violence. The dread of the contagion soon caused to disappear from the city all those whose fortune afforded them the means of flying. The indigent class alone remained exposed to the fury of the epidemic. Livingston devoted himself to the performance of the duties of his station. He visited every day the most destitute of the sick. He conducted the physicians wherever he knew that misfortune claimed the aid which poverty could not command. "I never remember," said he to his friend and biographer, in speaking of this calamity, "to have experienced a greater fulness of health than at this period. There is something healthful to a man in the consciousness of a duty well discharged. Notwithstanding the number of sick whom I saw every day, my recollection of their sufferings, of their distress, of the interest attaching to their families, to their various relations, did not present itself to my mind only in the mass: I knew each one individually. I identified myself with each one of the sick, for I could call each, with the physician, my patient. I shared in the regrets of the family of each victim, the joy of the wife, the children, of each convalescent restored to life, to labor, to the tenderness of family affections. After the first fears of contagion were surmounted, I ceased to experience the slightest apprehension of danger. My confidence was not fatalism-(my soul has always regarded with horror that cruel slavery of man to necessity)—but a profound sense of the task of humanity which Providence had assigned me. It was the unfavorable turn of an alternative contract (to speak the language of the law) which I had signed, in accepting the chief magistracy of a great city, then populous and flourishing. This contract must be executed in its letter and in its spirit."

Near the close of the epidemic Mr. Livingston was attacked by it, and reduced to the point of death. On recovering from his illness, he found his private affairs sadly deranged, and being unjustly and suddenly subjected to heavy responsibilities, he resigned his office, and determined to remove to Louisiana. This he did in 1804. He arrived at New Orleans in February of that year; immediately commenced the practice of his profession, and soon amassed a fortune. Associated with others, he accomplished many important reforms in the law of Louisiana, which was, at that time, "a vast miscellany of Spanish customs, French decrees, English precedents, and conflicting legislative enactments." This confusion had been brought about by the various fortunes of Louisiana, under Spanish and French rule. Livingston set about correcting these evils. "Rejecting alike the interminable proceedings of the French, and the absurd fictions of English practice, he formed a short and simple code of procedure, which combined the advantages of the various systems that prevailed, and was at the same time free from their vices."*

On the invasion of New Orleans by the British in 1812, Mr. Livingston was appointed by General Jackson, his aid-de-camp, and remained in his military family until the end of the war. In the battle he was active and intrepid, and at the close of the conflict, was employed in the negotiation for the exchange of prisoners. At the return of peace he renewed the labors of his profession; continued in the execution of his plans of legal reform. In 1820, he was elected by the Legislature of Louisiana, to prepare a system of penal law for that State. The following year he presented a report containing a specimen of his system, which was approved, and he was further empowered to finish it. He entered upon the task with the greatest assiduity, acquiring a knowledge of all points pertaining to the subject, which had originated in his own country and in Europe, corresponding with distinguished and learned lawyers of all nations, comparing the principles of every theory-and, after spending four years in its completion, had the satisfaction to see it approved. The beauty of its arrangement, says Mr. Livingston's biographer, the wisdom of its provisions, the simplicity of its forms, and the clearness of its

* Edward Livingston and his Code. Democratic Review, vol. 9.

language, equal, but do not surpass, the philanthropy, the wise views of human character, the knowledge of social intercourse, and the insight into the sources of happiness and misery, by all of which it is distinguished, far beyond any similar system of criminal law that has emanated from the jurists of any age or country." An elaborate and highly finished account of this important work will be found in the Democratic Review for July, 1841.

In 1823, Mr. Livingston was elected to represent Louisiana, in the Lower House of Congress. He took his seat in December of that year. In 1829, he was chosen by the legislature of his adopted State, to the United States Senate. His course in Congress was distinguished. In the several important measures that originated during his career, he took an active and dignified part. His speech, on Mr. Foot's resolution, is thought by many to be one of the most eloquent and able that were delivered on that occasion. Its extreme length, alone, precludes it from this collection.

Mr. Livingston continued in the Senate until the spring of 1831, when he was appointed by President Jackson, to the honorable position of Secretary of State. On his retirement from this office, in 1833, he was sent as minister to the Court of France. After spending two years abroad, "with honor to himself and his country," he returned to America, and established his residence at Red Hook, on the Hudson River. On the afternoon of Monday, the twenty-fifth of May, 1836, he died, after a very short illness, induced by drinking cold water. His age was seventy-two. "The last time I saw him-which was a few days before his death," said one of his friends, "he talked with all the anticipations and apparent health of a youthful sportsman, about a trouting excursion he was contemplating to Long Island. His summons has been short and sudden for a more fearful journey."*

SPEECH ON THE ALIEN BILL.†

Mr. Livingston delivered this speech in the House of Representatives of the United States on the nineteenth of June, 1798,

MR. SPEAKER: I esteem it one of the most fortunate occurrences of my life, that, after an inevitable absence from my seat in this House, I have arrived in time to express my dissent to the passage of this bill. It would have been a source of eternal regret, and the keenest remorse, if any private affairs, any domestic concerns, however interesting, had deprived me of the opportunity, I am now abont to use, of stating my objections, and recording my vote against an act, which I believe to be in direct violation of the constitution, and marked with every characteristic of the most odious despotism.

*New York American, 1836.

+ By the provisions of this bill, the President might order dangerous or suspected aliens, to depart out of the territory of the United States. The penalty, provided for disobedience of the President's order, was imprisonment and a perpetual exclusion from the rights of citizenship. The

bill provided, that, if any alien, ordered to depart, should prove to the satisfaction of the President, that no injury to the United States would arise from suffering him to remain, the President might grant him a license to remain for such time as he should deem proper, and at such place as he should designate.

On my arrival, I inquired, what subject occupied the attention of the House; and being told it was the alien bill, I directed the printed copy to be brought to me, but to my great surprise, seven or eight copies of different bills on the same subject, were put into my hands; among them it was difficult (so strongly were they marked by the same family features) to discover the individual bill then under discussion. This circumstance gave me a suspicion, that the principles of the measure were erroneous. Truth marches directly to its end, by a single, undeviating path. Error is either undermining in its object, or pursues it through thousand winding ways; the multiplicity of propositions, therefore, to attain the same general but doubtful end, led me to suspect, that neither the object, nor the means, proposed to attain it, were proper or necessary. These surmises have been confirmed by a more minute examination of the bill. In the construction of statutes, it is a received rule to examine, what was the state of things when they were passed, and what were the evils they were intended to remedy; as these circumstances will be applied in the construction of the law, it may be well to examine them minutely in framing it. The state of things, if we are to judge from the complexion of the bill, must be, that a number of aliens, enjoying the protec tion of our government, are plotting its de