"null and void, if gentlemen dislike those terms, but
to be no law." John Bacon, a strong Republican from
Massachusetts, said that he "must frankly acknowl-
edge the right of judicial officers of every grade to
judge for themselves of the constitutionality of every
statute on which they are called to act in their respec-
tive spheres. This is not only their right but it is
their indispensable duty thus to do." ^ James A.
Bayard of Delaware defended the Supreme Court
and its powers with great vigor in the ablest speech of
the debate — a speech well worth reading in its entirety.
He pointed out that *'it was once thought by gentlemen
who now deny the principle, that the safety of the
citizen and of the States rested upon the power of the
Judges to declare an unconstitutional law void. • • •
Of what importance," he asked, "is it to say that
Congress are prohibited from doing certain acts, if no
legitimate authority exists in the country to decide
whether an act done is a prohibited act?" Congress
on this theory becomes "absolute and omnipotent"
and may "trample the Constitution under foot. ..."
So, too, "if the States or the State Courts had a final
power of annulling the acts of this government," he
said, "its miserable and precarious existence would not
be worth the trouble of a moment to preserve. ... K
you mean to have a Constitution, you must discover a
power to which the acknowledged right is attached of
pronoimcing the invalidity of the acts of the Legislature
which contravenes the instrument."
It has been very generally assumed by historians and jurists, writing mostly ex cathedra^ that the opposition
^ National IrUeUigencer, March 19, July 88, publishing in full this pOTtioo of Bacon's speech which was not reported or published in AnnaU rf CongrtM, 7th Cong,, l8t SesB, A Washington correspondent in Salem Oasutte, March 2, 1802, said : '*This concession exceedingly nettled the leaders of hb party and occasioned him a severe scolding as soon as the committee rose*'* See also Und., March SO.
