Page:The Supreme Court in United States History vol 1.djvu/110

84 later, objected to the right of the Judges to issue a mandamus to his Cabinet officer. Alexander White of Virginia said: "I would rather the Judiciary should decide the point because it is more properly within their department"; and again: "I imagine the Legislature may construe the Constitution with respect to the powers annexed to their department, but subject to the decision of the Judges." It remained, however, for Elbridge Gerry, who later became one of the strongest of the Anti-Federalists, to assert most clearly that: "The Judges are the constitutional umpire on such questions. … We are not the expositors of the Constitution. The Judges are the expositors of the Constitution and Acts of Congress. Our exposition, therefore, would be subject to their revisal. The Judiciary may disagree with us and undo what all our efforts have labored to accomplish." And Gerry further asked whether the Judges "because Congress has usurped power", were to be impeached "for doing a meritorious act and standing in opposition to their (i.e. the Congress') usurpation of power?" It thus appears that in these early days, it was not "usurpation of power" by the Courts which was talked of, but rather, "usurpation of power" by Congress. Two years later, the debate in Congress over the chartering of the Bank of North America disclosed again a general concurrence of opinion among Congressmen, both of the South and the North, as to the right of the Court to adjudicate upon the constitutionality of the measure.