Samuel W. Dana of Connecticut. The rule to show cause is only an incipient proceeding, said Bayard, which concluded nothing, neither the jurisdiction nor the regularity of the Act. The Judges did their duty; they gave an honorable proof of their independence. They listened to the complaint of an individual against your President, and have shown themselves disposed to grant redress against the greatest man in the government. If a wrong has been committed and the Constitution authorizes interference, will gentlemen say that the Secretary of State, or even the President, is not subject to law ? And if they violate the law, where can we apply for redress but to our Courts of Justice?" And, said Bayard further, the fact that the Court had been "hardy enough to send their mandate in to the Executive Cabinet" was strong proof of the value of the Constitutional provision making the Judges independent. "They are not terrified by the threats of Executive power and dare to judge between the rights of a citizen and the pretensions of a President." This defense, however, based as it was on an assertion of the right of the Court to grant redress against the President—a right not actually involved in the Marbuiy suit which only called for a mandamus to the Secretary of State—a right furthermore which the Court in its final decision disclaimed—was not calculated to calm the feelings of the President and his adherents.
The bill passed the Senate on February 3, 1802, by the dose vote of sixteen to fifteen. "The Judiciary Bill keeps moving on," wrote Gouvemeur Morris, a week later. "People of all parties begin to be alarmed at this wild measure, which, to get rid of a few obnoxious Judges (obnoxious to the ruling party), under the pretext of saving a little money, renders the judicial system
