Page:The Supreme Court in United States History vol 1.djvu/235

Rh vision relative to judicial tenure of office and would destroy the independence of the Judiciary, since if Congress had the power to wipe out a Judge's position whenever it disagreed with his decision, the Judiciary would certainly become a subservient body, acting under fear of Legislative action. Under such circumstances, the Federalists said: "It will be in vain long to expect from the Judges the firmness and integrity to oppose a constitutional decision to a law." But while arguments were advanced at great length as to the merits and demerits of the existing statute and of the proposed repeal, the whole contest was, in reality, a mere desperate fight by the one party for the retention of the Federalist Circuit Judges appointed by Adams, and by the other party for their ouster. Throughout the debate, the Republicans displayed their resentment at the action of the Court in issuing its rule to show cause against a Cabinet officer. Senator Jackson of Georgia spoke of the "attack of the Judges on the Secretary of State." "The Judges have been hardy enough to send their mandatory process into the Executive Cabinet to examine its concerns. Does this in the Judges seem unambitious?" said Giles of Virginia. The granting of a rule is "an assumption of jurisdiction," said John Randolph of Virginia, and he added sarcastically: "The Judges are said to be humble, unaspiring men! Their humble pretensions extend only to a complete exemption from Legislative control; to the exercise of an inquisitorial authority over the Cabinet of the Executive.... In their inquisitorial capacity, the Supreme Court... may easily direct the Executive by mandamus in what mode it is their pleasure that he should exercise his functions." The action of the Court was defended by the Federalist leaders, James A. Bayard of Delaware and