Page:The Supreme Court in United States History vol 1.djvu/227

Rh treasury of the United States. The Court unanimously acceded to this doctrine and gave directions accord- ingly. After reading the order to the Court, Mr. Ed- wards passed over the subject sub silentio.'^ While the action of the Circuit Court was undoubtedly cor- rect, and while the Presidential order was utterly in- valid, the refusal to recognize his authority was re- garded by Jeflferson as a political move on the part of Adams' Judges, especially since it became the subject of comment in the Federalist party organs who exulted over the defeat of "executive usurpation." ^ That the United States Courts, however, were determined to maintain their independence of the Executive, whether Federalist or Republican, had been made plain at the August Term of the Supreme Court in this same year at the argument of Ship Amelia^ Talbot v. Seaman^ 1 Cranch, 1. In this case, involving the right to sal- vage by an American vessel which had recaptured a neutral vessel previously captured and armed by the French, in order to prove the legality of the recapture, James A. Bayard, counsel for the claimants, had offered to read the instructions of President Adams constru- ing the statute passed by Congress authorizing hostil- ities by American ships. To the reading of this paper, all the Judges were opposed, and Judge Paterson stated that he had "no objection to hearing them, but they

^ New York Evening Poet^ Jan. 22, 1802. See also New York Commercial Adver' tiser, "To the President", No. XYIII; ConnecHeut Courant, Jan. 18, 1802, which said: "Your directing the prize money of the French Schooner Peggy condemned in the Circuit Court in Connecticut to be released to the claimant was held by the Court to be iUegal ; the Court disobeyed the order and decreed the money to be paid into the Bank ol the United States for the public benefit."

Tn JJ^Ud fiij^^^ 17 .S[/»A/wwmr Ptmmi. 1 Crunch. in«. ttf th^ Tlt^^fmht^ Term ii^ 1801, the Supreme Court held that Jefferson's construction of the treaty as applied io t&e facts in thb case was correct, and that by the decree of the Circuit Court the vessel was not "definitively condemned", and that it should be returned to its French owners; see also Attorney-General Lincoln's opinion to the contrary, June 17, 25, 1802, Ope. Attye.-Qen.^ 1, 114, 119. As to this episode, see also letto^ of Gallatin to Madison, June 9 ; Madison to Pichon, July 19 ; Gallatin to Hamil- ton, Aug. 13, 1802, HamiUon Papere M88.