absence of the Chief Justice and of Judge Cushing, and
(as stated in the newspapers), this being a cause of
the first impression, ordered it to be continued for the
purpose of hearing a further argument before a fuller
Court." '
With the close of this Term, the last to be held in Philadelphia, there came to an end a distinct period in the Court's history.' For eleven years it had existed, formulating with comparatively little criticism the general principles of judicial procedure and of interna- tional and constitutional law on which its subsequent career was to be based. Thus far, it had been singularly free from hostile attack; but a great change in the attitude of the public towards the Court was now im- pending. The increasing rancors due to the existence of the British and French factions in this country and to the somewhat immoderate legislation of President Adams' Administration had aroused a furious spirit of partisanship. Into this boiling political caldron, the Court had been drawn during the past two years, by reason of the fact that all the delicate questions on which the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist parties were
^ The final sitting of the Court at Philadelphia was thus described in the Aurora, Aug. 19, 1800: "0n Friday last, the Supreme Court of the United States arose after a session of one week, during which time they heard and determined sundry causes of great importance. The case of Tolbot v. Seaman is continued to the next Term. ... At the close of the term, Samuel Bayard, Esq., Clerk of the Court, resigned his office and declined to attend the future sessions which are to be held in Washington. Elias B. Caldwell, Esq., of New Jersey, has been appointed Clerk of the Court. He will reside and keep his office in Georgetown, State of Maryland."
' In the sixteen active Terms between 1790 and 1800, the decisions in only about sixty cases are reported by Alexander J. Dallas in his Reports, but there were various other cases decided but not reported, among which were Pintado v. Bemed, see Note to 3 Dallas, 324, Aug., 1796 ; Ex Parte Chandler, 7th Cong., Itt Sese., 904; Yale V. Todd, 13 How. 62, note; Pegan v. Hooper, see S6th Cong., £d Sees., Houae Doc. No. 123, opinion Atty.-Cren. Randolph, April 12, 1793; Pepoon v. Jenkins, ibid., letter of E. Tilghman to Randolph, March 19, 1793 ; Anonymous Case referred to in I Ops. Attys.-Oen., 71, as decided at Aug. Term, 1790 ; Prixe Cases referred to in letter of Adet to Pickering, Nov. 16, 1796, Amer. State Papers, For. Rd., I, 679 ; XJniied States v. Hopkins, at Feb. Term, 1794, referred to in Charies Lee’s argument in Marhury v. Madison.
