Bar, where the most important rights of Man must, in time, be discussed and determined upon, as well those of Nations, as of individuals. Happy country! Whose Judges rendered independent—and selected for their wisdom and virtue—constitute so firm a barrier against tyranny and usurpation on the one hand, and fraud and licentiousness on the other."[1] An interesting reminder, however, of the fact that the prominence of the legal profession in bringing about the adoption of the Constitution had aligned the Anti-Federalist Party in hostility to lawyers was seen in the criticism by its newspaper organs of the number of Members of Congress admitted to the Federal Bar." It is alarming to find so many Members of Congress sworn into the Federal Court at its first sitting in New York. The question then is whether it is proper that Congress should consist of so large a proportion of Members who are sworn attomies in the Federal Courts ; or whether it is prudent to trust men to enact laws who are practising on them in another department. Let common sense answer. If Congress does consist of practising Attorneys, the laws enacted may, in a great measure, depend on the particular causes such individuals may have to manage in the Judiciary ; this being the case, the property of the people may in a few years become the sport of Law-Makers acting in the capacity of interested attorneys."[2]
The session having lasted ten days and no case being on its docket for argument, the Court adjourned finally on February 10, 1790, "to the time and place appointed by law"; and in the evening of the same day,
- ↑ Gazette of the United States, March 6, 1790.
- ↑ Independent Chronicle, Sept. 28, 1790. "A writer in a Vermont paper observes that the candidates (for Congress) are generally lawyers and that Uiey are not fit subjects of the people's choice. Make them, says he. Governors, Judges, Generals and what you will, but never make them legislators." Columbian Centind, Aug. 25. 1792.
