the beKef) the institution of mandamus proceedings
in the Marbury Case as a purely political move on the
part of the Federalist Party, and as an effort to scare
off their opponents from attempting to repeal the Judi-
ciary Law, is very clearly shown in a letter from a Wash-
ington correspondent, written within five days after
the repeal bill was introduced,^ "The debate has at-
tracted considerable attention,'* he wrote, "but as its
importance may not be seen in its true political light, I
think it proper to tell you that the late mandamus busi-
ness in the Supreme Court was calculated expressly
with a view to deter from any attempt to repeal this
law. The question on the mandamus first appeared
as only a contest between the Judiciary and Execu-
tive, but it now appears to have embraced a larger
scope." After pointing out that, if the Federalist con-
tention that a law establishing a Court was irrepeal-
able was sound, "the Judges, who have so much con-
troul over life and property and who by the boundless
construction of common law assume the most dan-
gerous power, would then regulate not only the law
but the government , and that Congress must "rescue
the country,*' he continued: "The mandamus, then,
would in the first instance act as a check, and in any
case tend to throw doubts among weak men and afford
at least room for invective ; again, if the Court should
carry the assumed right of mandamus to Executive
officers into practice, the precedent would not only
perpetually enable thjB Supreme Court to controul the
Executive but to perplex the Administration by simi-
lar litigations on the repeal of the law, in which case
the Court would not be at war with the Executive,
but with Congress. There is reason to believe that
^ SoUm iUgitUr, Jan. 88, 1802, letter of Jan. 11, from a Washington corre- apondent.
