on the rights of the President had been launched in
the Senate by the Federalist Senator from Pennsyl-
vania, James Ross; and it was this move which, in
February, 1803, was engaging the attention of JeflFer-
son and the Democrats, much more than the somewhat
moot question involved in the case in the Court. On
February 14, at the end of the Marbury argiunent.
Senator Ross had introduced resolutions providing
that the President be authorized to take inmiediate
possession of New Orleans and to call into service
50,000 State militia and to employ them with the mil-
itary and naval forces of the United States, in eflfecting
the above objects.^ This resolution was a direct and
serious interference with the President's peace nego-
tiations and was so intended. It met with strong and
bitter Republican opposition. **It is in fact a propo-
sition to exercise the functions of the President,'* said
Senator Wells of Delaware. "Much has been said
about confidence in the Executive,'* said Senator
Nicholas of Virginia. "There is another way in which
these gentlemen may manifest their confidence in the
President, and which the public good requires of them.
It is, that they acquiesce in the eflfort that he is making
to obtain our rights and security for these rights by
negotiation, and thereby aid its chance of success."
The Federalist Senator from New York, Gouverneur Morris, on the other hand, denied that they were "opposing obstacles or raising difficulties or fettering and trammeling Executive authority." Jefferson, nevertheless, insisted that he must not be thus interfered with and the Ross Resolution failed to pass. Before its defeat, however, the case of Marbury v. Madison was decided, and the question of Executive functions was thus before the public in two aspects.
^ 7th Cong., U 8u$., ddiMtte on Feb. 14, 16, ft5, 1808.
