to inquire, "whether the Constitution had been violated; and whether the Legislative and Executive departments had encroached on each other." This important and novel experiment in politics merits, in several points of view, very particular attention. In some of them it may perhaps, as a single experiment, made under circumstances somewhat peculiar, be thought to be not absolutely conclusive. But as applied to the case under consideration, it involves some facts, which I venture to remark, as a complete and satisfactory illustration of the reasoning which I have employed.
First. It appears, from the names of the gentlemen who composed the Council, that some, at least, of its most active members had also been active and leading characters in the parties which preëxisted in the State.
Secondly. It appears, that the same active and leading members of the Council had been active and influential members of the Legislative and Executive branches, within the period to be reviewed; and even patrons or opponents of the very measures to be thus brought to the test of the Constitution. Two of the members had been Vice-presidents of the State, and several others members of the Executive Council, within the seven preceding years. One of them had been Speaker, and a number of others distinguished members, of the Legislative assembly, within the same period.
Thirdly. Every page of their proceedings witnesses the effect of all these circumstances on the temper of their deliberations. Throughout the continuance of the Council, it was split into two fixed and violent parties. The fact is acknowledged and lamented by themselves. Had this not been the case, the face of their proceedings exhibits a proof equally satisfactory. In all questions, however unimportant in themselves, or unconnected
