taken up on Monday and rejected Yes 16 — Noes 12 — on
the ground that the measure was a party measure; that
it was meant as the basis of Executive crimination; that
it claimed an act from the Senate who were great constitu-
tional Judges of the Executive in case of impeachment,
that might indelicately and improperly commit them;
that it sanctioned a right of the Judiciary to which they had
no legal pretensions; and that it totally abrogated that
rule of the Senate which injoined that the Executive Jour-
nal should be kept secret. It would seem from the recent
attempts to disturb the harmony of the L^islature, that
as much effect is calculated upon from the ghost of judicial
power, as from the reality of it. On the annihilation
of the latter, the former appears to have risen from the
tomb of Capulets, and to have stalked into either house,
alternately crying "Vengeance, vengeance" — "Money,
money."
The opening of the Term of Court at which the noted Marbury Case was to be heard was referred to in the newspapers as follows : " It is expected that busi- ness of much importance will come before the Supreme Court of the United States now sitting at Washing- ton. The constitutionality of the anti-justices bill, the affair of Mr. Marbury and others who were de- prived of their commissions as justices of the peace by Mr. Jefferson, and several important civil cases of an individual kind. We are informed that most of the gentlemen of the Bar of this city will attend here." ^ On February 9, 1803, the rule to show cause came on for hearing before the Court ; and Marbury's counsel, Charles Lee, was confronted at the outset with obstacles in proving the facts of his case, owing to the unwillingness of the Secretary of State and of his subordinates to give any information whatever
^ Poulson's American Daily Advertiser (Phil.), Feb. 15, 1803, quoting Baltimore Anti-Democrat, The Court met on Monday, February 7, but only four Judges were pieaent* Judge Cuahing being ill. Watkinffton Federaliit, Feb. 9, 1803.
