APPENDIX. *

Mr. INGERSOLL said, his intention was to listen to the instruction he expected to derive from the discussion of this most important subject, and take no active part till he got from others their better digested views; but, the unexpected turn given to it, by the vote of yesterday, placed him, and probably many others, in a false position, and precipitated him upon the debate before he was, by any means, prepared to do it justice. Yet, he would attempt an argument, addressed altogether to the reason and candor of the committee, studiously avoiding personality and all excitement. If he were even able to be eloquent, he would not on this occasion, and he must take the liberty to say, that the name of WASHINGTON, to overawe us, was as much out of place, as introduced by the venerable and learned chairman of the judiciary committee, as it would be in a charge to a jury or other judgment of a court. Let us reason together, as if we were not in formal session, but sitting under the mild moderation of the gentleman in the chair, (Mr. M'Sherry) we were considering this all important topic, in free and unreserved conversation. I shall be thankful to any gentleman for all inquiries made of me, as I proceed, and, instead of complaining of interruption, will rejoice in opportunities of endeavoring to make myself perfectly understood. I do believe that the convention is open, as I profess to be, to that conviction which may result from a frank interchange of opinions, and there are, probably, many members attached, as I am, to some cardinal principle, but undetermined as to its mode of application, and ready to unite upon whatever free discussion may ascertain to be the best issue.

I feel all the disadvantages under which I address, even a forbearing argument to the committee, on this peculiar occasion. Scarce an unworthy motive can be imagined, that has not already been suggested, as impelling those who plead for reform. On the other hand, it is impossible to speak any thing like the whole truth in its advocacy. In the first place, the utterer of offensive, however honest turth, might be indicted, convicted and punished, as guilty of defamation. And, even if that should not be so, still he must make enemies of the most dangerous kind, for the learned Judge, the chairman of the committee, (Mr. Hopkinson) has told us, that there is no man who does not, some time or other, fall within the power of the judiciary. Judges, he says, are quite as liable as other men to unworthy passions and influences, and I must confess, that I do not feel while discussing them, the natural and proper freedom of debate, in the effert to expose a system by views unavoidably personal.

I agree with that respectable gentleman, in all he says of the impor

APPENDIX. *

Mr. INGERSOLL said, his intention was to listen to the instruction he expected to derive from the discussion of this most important subject, and take no active part till he got from others their better digested views; but, the unexpected turn given to it, by the vote of yesterday, placed him, and probably many others, in a false position, and precipitated him upon the debate before he was, by any means, prepared to do it justice. Yet, he would attempt an argument, addressed altogether to the reason and candor of the committee, studiously avoiding personality and all excitement. If he were even able to be eloquent, he would not on this occasion, and he must take the liberty to say, that the name of WASHINGTON, to overawe us, was as much out of place, as introduced by the venerable and learned chairman of the judiciary committee, as it would be in a charge to a jury or other judgment of a court. Let us reason together, as if we were not in formal session, but sitting under the mild moderation of the gentleman in the chair, (Mr. M'Sherry) we were considering this all important topic, in free and unreserved conversation. I shall be thankful to any gentleman for all inquiries made of me, as I proceed, and, instead of complaining of interruption, will rejoice in opportunities of endeavoring to make myself perfectly understood. I do believe that the convention is open, as I profess to be, to that conviction which may result from a frank interchange of opinions, and there are, probably, many members attached, as I am, to some cardinal principle, but undetermined as to its mode of application, and ready to unite upon whatever free discussion may ascertain to be the best issue.

I feel all the disadvantages under which I address, even a forbearing argument to the committee, on this peculiar occasion. Scarce an unworthy motive can be imagined, that has not already been suggested, as impelling those who plead for reform. On the other hand, it is impossible to speak any thing like the whole truth in its advocacy. In the first place, the utterer of offensive, however honest turth, might be indicted, convicted and punished, as guilty of defamation. And, even if that should not be so, still he must make enemies of the most dangerous kind, for the learned Judge, the chairman of the committee, (Mr. Hopkinson) has told us, that there is no man who does not, some time or other, fall within the power of the judiciary. Judges, he says, are quite as liable as other men to unworthy passions and influences, and I must confess, that I do not feel while discussing them, the natural and proper freedom of debate, in the effert to expose a system by views unavoidably personal.

I agree with that respectable gentleman, in all he says of the impor

tance of the subject, which it is impossible to overrate. The judiciary is our Providence of this world. All other political clements are but elements; but this is, so to speak, the representation of DIVINITY on earth.

I concede also, that judicial independence is indispensible to good government; but, I deny, that, in order to be independent, judges must be irresponsible, or beyond the reach of whatever is the sovereignty of the

state.

The view of the learned chairman was first historical, and then argumentative; and, I will follow his method. First, with some notice of antiquity, secondly of England, and thirdly of our own country.

FIRST-NO such tenure as that during good behaviour was ever known, until after the English revolution of 1688. Let us, therefore, in the first place, do all ancient and modern nations, except England, the justice to recollect that all those wise and established systems of administering law which have obtained among them, together with their celebrated codes, come down to us without the tenure of judicial office which our constitution prescribes. And, while I freely acknowledge, that English justice protects personal liberty, much better than that of other nations; yet, as to property, it is at least questionable, whether it is not as well provided for by the administration of it in Italy, and Germany and France and Spain. We have been reminded to discredit responsible tenures, of many instances of arbitrary judicial proceedings in English state trials, before the revolution of 1688, which there is no need of controverting. But this committee will not forget, that the great foundations of our laws of property, those noblest monuments of English jurisprudence were laid by Coke, Hale, and other judges, whose judicial office was mere tenancy at will, under arbitrary and capricious monarchs. The gentleman from Union, (Mr. Merrill) said something disparaging of the French law, till, by charter, the judges were rendered removable. But, I call his attention to the fact, that the most splendid accomplishment of Napoleon's reign, which will outlive the renown of all his victories, was the code of laws called by his name, framed by judges and lawyers dependent on his will.

SECONDLY-Leaving antiquity and continental Europe for England, let us come at once to the act of 1701, which for the first time, conferred upon judges, the tenure of good behaviour; a vast improvement in their situation, and that of all those who look for impartial justice. But, after all the eulogy bestowed on this amelioration, it was nothing more than a transfer of judicial dependence, or responsibility, from the crown to the parliament, which, in England, represents the sovereignty of the people. In like manner, the French charter contains nothing more than a similar improvement; a great one, to be sure, because it substitutes the nation for a monarch, as the power controlling the judiciary. Since the British revolution, the constant tendency of mankind has been to greater freedom; to take from the sovereignty of one, and confirm that of the community; until, both in England and France, by reforms and revolutions, greater liberty, in some respects, has been established, than many Americans think compatible with even our free government. Voltaire, speaking of queen Elizabeth, says, she loved her people, and then asks, with a sneer,