Page:The Supreme Court in United States History vol 1.djvu/252

224 the repeal and this postponement, denouncing the whole proceedmgs as unconstitutional and the motive as impure. It might be said and truly that they had no right to meet by the law; yet, as they would claim to meet under the Constitution, to remonstrate against the law as having violated the Constitution, it is probable that that objection would not be attended to. If they attack the law, I mean the act of repeal, and are resolved to avail themselves of the occasion it furnishes to measure their strength with the other departments of government, I am of opinion that this postponement would give new colour to their pretensions, new spirits to their party and a better prospect of success. It will perhaps not be possible to avoid the collision and the crisis growing out of it. A measure of the kind referred to invites it. The best way to prevent one is to take a bold attitude and apparently invite it. The Court has a right to take its part, and ought not to be deprived of any pre-existing means. I am not apprehensive of any danger from such a collision, and am inclined to think the stronger the ground taken by the Court, especially, if it looks toward anarchy, the better the effect will be with the public. The people will then have to decide whether they will support the Court, or in other words embark again under the auspices of the Federal party, or cling to an Administration in two of the departments of the government which lessens their burdens and cherishes their liberty.

The enactment of this statute postponing the Court's session did not deflect the Federalists from their determination to have the legality of the Repeal Law presented for an adjudication by the Court, and the "Midnight Judges" themselves petitioned Congress for the passage of a resolution to request the President to cause an information in nature of a quo warranto to be filed by the Attorney-General against Richard Bassett, a petitioner, **for the purpose of deciding judicially on their claims.*'^ On this resolution, a heated debate

^ Alexander Hanuhon wrote to Cbaries C. Pindcney, April 25, 1802: "Upon the subject of the Judiciary I have had an opportunity of learning the Ofunions of the Chief Justice. He considers the late repealing Act as operative in depriv-