ity. We shall discover who is master of the ship. Whether
men appointed for life or the immediate representatives of
the people agreeably to the Constitution are to give laws
to the community. The Judges have already undertaken
in "evil times" to declare war in violation of that instru-
ment which binds us together. I sincerely hope that they
may take wit in their anger. They are hostile to us but they do not possess enough of the old Roman to sacrifice their salaries or even to risk them in the contest. They are not sufficiently disinterested.
This was a very extreme statement to be made by a lawyer who, then a Congressman from Delaware, was destined within four years to become Attorney-General of the United States and charged with the duty of arguing the Government cases before the tribunal whose integrity he had so attacked. An even more surprising suggestion had been made regarding the Court by James Monroe, who wrote to John Breckenridge suggesting the possibility (though not prepared to indorse it) that Congress might repeal the law organizing the Court "for the express purpose of dismissing the Judges when they cease to possess public confidence", and further suggesting impeachment in case the Judges should uphold the doctrine of the Federal common law:[1]
I see with pleasure that you have moved a repeal of the late Judiciary Law and that you have supported the motion in a manner to promote the object. I am glad that you have come forward on so great a question, and trust that you will continue to do so on all those which occur while you are in service. Believe me, you have nothing to fear from any opponent, and that you have it in your power and will do essential service to your country. Too much has fallen on Virginia heretofore. The friends of the same prin- ciples should step forward in every quarter to vindicate them and thus carry them home to their constituents throughout the Union. Your argument for the repeal of
- ↑ Breckenridge Papers MSS, letter of Jan. 15, 1802.
