Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 09.pdf/368

 The Late Mr. Justice Biishrod Washington. contravention of the just rights of Pennsyl vania, and the decree of reversal was null and void; so of the decree of the United States district court. Pause for a moment to behold the awful position in which the two sovereignties, that of the United States, and that of Pennsyl vania, are now placed. We tremble now, to look back at the precipice on which we stood. Nothing but the most calm and con summate prudence, and the most disinter ested patriotism could have brought us safely through this mortal crisis. The dis trict court of the United States hesitated to precede, the anticipated conflict being ter rible in the extreme. The process was sus pended that the case might be submitted to the Supreme Court, which, after a hearing, stood firmly to the Constitution and the law, and commanded the district judge to issue the process required. The process was is sued, and the officer of the court had no choice but to execute it, and compel obedi ence. Gen. Michael Bright, commanding a brigade of Pennsylvania militia, was ordered by the governor immediately to have in readiness a sufficient force under his com mand to execute the orders of the State court, and employ them to protect and de fend the person and property of the repre sentatives of Rittcnhotise, from and against any decree of the district court of the United States. A guard accordingly was placed by General Bright at the house of the ladies, and he with the other defendants in the in dictment opposed with force the efforts of the United States marshal to serve the writ issued to him. The process, however, was served, and the State yielded, paying the money according to the decree of the dis trict court. It was for this resistance of the process of a court of the United States that General Bright and others of his party were indicted and brought to trial before Judges Washington and Peters, holding a circuit court of the United States. "In the course of this trial," says Mr.

333

Brown, " and in deciding the various ques tions of law which arose under it, the ex traordinary judicial qualifications of Judge Washington were shown in full relief. The case lasted several weeks, during which time there was the greatest popular agitation. Rumors and threats of every kind were put in circulation. The States-rights men af fected to hold the power of the general government in contempt, and the authority of the court in derision. It was publicly declared that Judge Washington would never dare to charge against the defendants, or to pronounce sentence against them if they were convicted. But the people did not know him, or were incapable of appreciat ing his rare mental and judicial qualities. "He did charge against the defendants, they were convicted and he sentenced them." Judge Hopkinson, referring to the same case, narrates the following: "Upon the conclusion of the speeches of the counsel, the court sitting in the upstairs room of the United States circuit court, Philadelphia, the room being too small for the vast con course of anxious auditors, many of whom came to witness, as they expected, Judge Washington's discomfiture, the Judge, turn ing to the crier, said to him in the mildest and most composed way, " Adjourn the court, to meet to-morrow in the room on the ground floor of this building. This is an important case, the citizens manifest great interest in the result, and it is right that they should be allowed, without too much inconvenience, to witness the adminis tration of the justice of the country, to which all men, great and small, are alike bound to submit." Some one has said that even in a re public one monarch reigns, that monarch being Law. If, in yielding allegiance to this stern monarch, he seemed at times austere, it was in the private life of Bushrod Wash ington that the humanities prevailed, and the official became merged in the man. In