will be felo-de-se in the execution. . . . Whenever the
Federal Judiciary comes into operation, I think the
pride of the States will take alarm which, added to the
difficulty of attendance from the extent of the district
in many cases, the ridiculous situation of the venue,
and a thousand and other circumstances, will in the
end procure its destruction. The salaries, I think, are
rather high for the temper or circumstances of the
Union and furnish another cause of discontent to
those who are dissatisfied with the Government." *
At the same time, John Brown, a Congressman from
Kentucky, wrote : "I fear in the administration of it
great difficulties will arise from the conciurrent jurisdic-
tions of the Federal with the State Courts which will
unavoidably occasion great embarrassment and clash-
ing. But it is absolutely necessary to pass a Judiciary
Law at this session, and the one which passes is as good,
I believe, as we at present could make it. Experience
may point out its defects.'* Another Congressman
writing from New York, September 14, said: **The
Judicial Bill is now under consideration by Congress.
This Department, I dread as an awful Tribunal ... by
its institution, the Judges are completely independent,
being secure of their salaries, and removable only by
impeachment, not being subject to discharge on address
of both Houses as is the case in Great Britain." *
And William R. Davie, the leader of the Bar in North
Carolina, wrote to Judge Iredell, August 2, 1791 : "I
sincerely hoi>e something will be done at the next
session of Congress with the Judiciary Act; it is so
defective in point of arrangement, and so obscurely
drawn or expressed, that, in my opinion, it would
> Letters and Timet qf the Tylers (1884), by Lyon G. Tyler, letter of Sept. 29, 1789; Harry Innea Papers M8S, letter to Harry Innes, Sept. 28, 1789. ' See Oracle cf the Day (Portsmouth, N. H.)» quoted in General AdverHser (Phil.), June 9» 1705.
