ruling authority of this court. I must not be understood, sir, as complaining of the exercise of this jurisdiction by the Supreme Court, or to pass upon the correctness of their decisions. The authority has been given to them, and this is not the place to question its exercise. But this I will say that, if the question of conferring it was now presented for the first time, I should unhesitatingly say, that the people of the states might with safety be left to their own legislatures, and the protection of their

-

own courts.

Add to the immense powers of which I have spoken those of expounding treaties, so far, at least, as they bear upon individuals, citizens or aliens, - of deciding controversies between the states of the confederacy themselves, and between the citizens of the different states; and the justice of the remark will not be questioned, that there is no known judicial power so transcendently omnipotent as that of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Let us now consider the influence which this ought to have upon our legislation. It would not be in accordance with the common course of nature, to expect that such mighty powers can long continue to be exercised, without accumulating a weight of prejudice that may, one day, become dangerous to an institution which all admit to be of inestimable value. It is true, as has elsewhere been said, with apparent triumph, that the states whose legislative acts have successively fallen under the interdiction of the court have excited little or no sympathy on the part of their sister states, and, after struggling with the giant strength of the court, have submitted to their fate. But, sir, it is feared that this will not always be the case. Those who are most ardent in their devotion to this branch of the government, knowing the feelings produced by these decisions in those states affected by them, - sensible that those feelings are rather smothered, than abandoned upon conviction of their injustice, fear that, by adding another and another state to the ranks of those who think they have reason to complain, an accumulation of prejudice may be produced, that will threaten, if not endanger, the safety of the institution.

April 11, 1826.

Mr. WOODBURY. The proposed bill not only alters the system for local purposes, by requiring the attendance of an additional judge at the Circuit Court in regions of country not so populous as those where the judges of the Supreme Court now attend, but it alters the system for general purposes, by enlarging the Supreme Court itself one half its whole original number; by leaving its quorum so that contradictory decisions. may constantly be made without any change in the court itself; and by increasing it to as great an extent as a majority of its present quorum, so that new results may possibly be produced in all its grand supervising powers over each state, and over the whole confederation.

It is thus that a principle lurks in the last effect of this great alteration, which, in the opinion of many, should carry anxiety and dismay into every heart; because, among other objections, it places at the mercy of legislative breath, in any moment of overheated excitement, all that is valuable in any constitutional judgment on its records. We have only, as in this case, to add a number to any court sufficient to balance a majority of its quorum, and, by a union of feeling with the appointing power, secure judges of certain desirable opinions; and any political or constitutional decision can, in the next case which arises, be overturned. Every security

is thus prostrated. The system is not extended, but is, in principle, destroyed; for thus does this increase open an avenue to a radical change in the highest functions of one great department of our government, and a department, too, of all others the most endangered by any change, because, in its very nature, designed for permanency, independence, and firmness, amidst those tempests which at times convulse most of the elements of society.

Gentlemen must perceive that I speak only of the general tendency and alarming character of such an increase, without reference to the motives which have now recommended it. They are doubtless pure. propriety is to be tried by the reasons for it, and not by motives.

But its

If this system is to be extended to the six new states, because most excellent, without regard to the effect of such an extension on the Supreme Court itself, and without regard to population or expense, then why not extend it to every part of the Union now destitute of it? When gentlemen talk of equality and broad American grounds, when they, with indignation and justice, disdain sectional views and favoritism, — why create new circuits for the people in these new states, and not, at the same time, create them for more than three times as many people, now destitute of such circuits, in Western New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia? For, if the circuit system of itself be superior, and therefore, without regard to other circumstances, is to be extended to the west and south-west, for the safety and advantage of about half a million of people now destitute, then, surely, a million and a half of people, in the three great Atlantic states, are equally entitled to its security and blessings.

Disposal of the Public Lands.

SENATE, May, 1826.

Mr. VAN BUREN said, the subject of the public lands was becoming daily more and more interesting, and would occupy much time in legisla tion. It extended the patronage of the government over the states in which they were situated to a great extent; it subjected them to an unwise and unprofitable dependence on the federal government. No man could render the country a greater service than he who should devise some plan by which the United States might be relieved from the ownership of this property, by some equitable mode. He would vote for

a proposition to vest the lands in the states in which they stood, on some just and equitable terms, as related to the other states in the confederacy. He hoped that, after having full information on the subject, they would be able to effect that great object. He believed that, if those lands were disposed of at once to the several states, it would be satisfactory to all.

Presidential Election.

SENATE, 1826.

Mr. VAN BUREN. Under the Articles of Confederation, the representation of each state in the general government was equal. The Union was in all respects purely federal, a league of sovereign states upon equal terms. To remedy certain defects, by supplying certain powers, the Convention which framed the present Constitution was called. That Convention, it is now well known, was immediately divided into parties, on the interesting question of the extent of power to be given to the new govern

1

ment—whether it should be federal or national; whether dependent upon or independent of the state governments. It is equally well known that that point, after having several times arrested the proceedings of the Convention, and threatened a dissolution of the Confederation, subsequently divided the people of the states on the question of ratification. He might add that, with the superadded question of what powers have been given by the Constitution to the federal government, to the agitation of which the feelings which sprang out in the Convention greatly contributed, it had continued to divide the people of this country down to the present period. The party in the Convention in favor of a more energetic government, being unable to carry, or, if able, unwilling to hazard the success of the plan with the states, a middle course was agreed upon. That was, that the government should be neither federal nor national, but a mixture of both; that of the legislative department, one branch-the power of representation — should be wholly national, and the other the Senate -wholly federal; that, in the choice of the executive, both interests should be regarded, and that the judicial should be organized by the other two. But, to quiet effectually the apprehensions of the advocates for the rights and interest of the states, it was provided that the general government should be made entirely dependent, for its continuance, on the will and pleasure of the state governments. Hence it was decided that the House of Representatives should be apportioned among the states, with reference to their population, and chosen by the people; and power was given to Congress to regulate and secure their choice, independent of and beyond the control of the state governments. That the Senate should be chosen exclusively by the state legislatures; and that the choice of the electors of President and Vice-President, although the principle of their apportionment was established by the Constitution, should, in all respects, except the time of their appointment and of their meeting, be under the exclusive control of the legislatures of the several states.

On reference to the proceedings of the state conventions, it will be seen that, in several of the states, the control by Congress over the choice of representatives merely, was strongly remonstrated against; that amendments were proposed for its qualification by the states of South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and New York; that most of them resolved that it should be a standing instruction to their delegates in Congress, to endeavor to effect that and other amendments proposed. The proposition of the gentleman from New Jersey, to which Mr. Van Buren had alluded, would, if adopted, break an important link in the chain of dependency of the general upon the state governments. It would surrender to the general government all control over the election of President and Vice-President, by placing the choice of electors on the same footing with that of representatives. It would at this time be premature to go into a minute examination of the provisions of the resolution alluded to, to show that such would be its ef fects. Upon examination, it will be found that such would be its construction; that it does in substance what another proposition upon their table, originating in the other house, does in words. But even were there doubt upon that subject, that doubt should be removed by an express provision, reserving to the states their present control over the election, except as to what is particularly provided for in the resolution now proposed. If it is fit to take from the states their control over the choice of electors of President and Vice-President, and give it to the federal government, 62

VOL. IV.

it would be equally proper, under the popular idea of giving their election to the people, to divide the states into districts for the choice of senators, as was proposed in the Convention, and give to Congress the control over their election also. If the system be once broken in upon in this respect, the other measure will naturally follow, and we shall then have what was so much dreaded by those who have gone before us, and what he feared would be so much regretted by those who come after, a completely consolidated government, a government in which the state governments would be no otherwise known or felt than as it became necessary to control them. To all this Mr. Van Buren was opposed.

At the time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution, it was a question of much speculation and discussion, which of the two governments would be most in danger from the accumulation of influence by the operation of the powers distributed by the Constitution. That discussion was founded on the assumption that they were, in several respects, rival powers, and that such powers would always be found in collision. The best lights which could be thrown upon the subject were derived from the examples afforded by the fates of several of the governments of the old world, which were deemed to be, in some respects, similar to ours. But the governments in question having operated upon, and been administered by, people whose habits, characters, tempers, and conditions, were essentially different from ours, the inferences to be derived from that source were, at best, unsatisfactory. Mr. Van Buren thought that experience — the only unerring criterion by which matters of this description could be tested had settled for us the general point of the operation of the powers conferred by the Constitution upon the relative strength and influence of the respective governments. It was, in his judgment, susceptible of entire demonstration, that the Federal Constitution had worked a gradual, if not an undue, increase of the strength and control of the general government, and a correspondent reduction of the influence, and, consequently, of the respectability, of the state governments.

On the Bankrupt Law.

SENATE, May 1, 1826.

Mr. HAYNE. The first question which presents itself for consideration is, the necessity of a bankrupt law. It is asked "whether the laws of the states, on this subject, are not adequate to the object." I answer, decidedly and unequivocally, that there exists the most pressing necessity for now establishing "uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy throughout the United States;" and that the laws of the states, on this subject, are inefficient, unjust, and ruinous in their operation. In the remarks I am about to make on this branch of the subject, I wish to be distinctly understood as confining my observations to the effect of the state insolvent laws on persons concerned in trade. It is from the operation of these laws on the commerce of the country that those evils flow which demand a speedy and effectual remedy.

There now exist, in the several states of this Union, upwards of twenty distinct systems of bankruptcy, or insolvency, each differing from all the rest in almost every provision intended to give security to the creditor or relief to the debtor; differing in every thing which touches the rights and remedies of the one, or the duties and liabilities of the other.

By the laws of some of the states, debtors cannot be arrested either on

mesne or final process; by others, personal property may be held in defiance of creditors; while, by others, real estate cannot be touched. In some instances, executions are suspended; in others, the courts of justice are closed, or, which is the same thing, delays are sanctioned which amount to a denial of justice. In some states, a few creditors in the immediate neighborhood are suffered, by attachment, or other legal proceedings, (often the result of collusion with the debtor,) to secure to themselves the whole estate of an insolvent. In several states, persons arrested for debt are permitted to "swear out," as it is called, after a notice of a few days; while in other states, they are required to lie in jail for three or four months. In some instances, the relief extended is confined to the discharge of the debtor from arrest in the particular suit; in others, from arrest in all suits; and in some few cases, the attempt has been made to release him from all future liability on existing contracts. These various systems, unequal and inconsistent as they must be admitted to be, are rendered still more objectionable by being perpetually fluctuating. It was the opinion of one of the ablest judges that ever sat on the English bench, or any other bench, that it was better for the community "that a rule should be certain than that it should be just;" for the obvious reason, that we can shape our conduct, or our contracts, in reference to any known and settled rule, so as to avoid its injurious effects; but when the rule is uncertain, we cannot avoid falling under its operation.

We are told that it was felt as a grievance by the Roman people, that the tyrant should write his laws "in a small character, and hang them up on high pillars," so that it was difficult to read them; but that grievance would have been rendered still more intolerable, if the inscriptions had been varied with the rising and setting of the sun.

Not a year, hardly a month passes by, which does not witness numerous, and, in many instances, radical changes in the insolvent systems of the several states. It is found utterly impracticable to conform to them, or to guard against them. It defies the wisdom of the bench, or the learning of the bar, to give certainty or consistency to a system of laws, upon which twenty-four different legislatures are constantly acting, and almost daily innovating a system which changes with a rapidity that deceives the mental vision, and leaves us in the grossest ignorance.

It is manifest, Mr. President, that the states are now reduced to the necessity of entering into a competition with each other, in restricting the rights of creditors, and impairing the liabilities of debtors; and this, too, in a matter in which, as it is impossible to mark the exact line of equality, there must be great danger of their advancing, step by step, until every thing is unsettled. I am persuaded that nothing but the constitutional prohibition on the states, against "impairing the obligation of contracts," and the general-I might almost say the universal -belief that they have no right to pass an efficient bankrupt law, have hitherto prevented such an interference between debtor and creditor, as would have given a fatal blow to commercial credit and enterprise.

Sir, this whole country is filled with unfortunate debtors, who owe their failure to such causes. I have no hesitation in declaring it to be my firm belief, and settled conviction, founded on some personal knowledge, and information derived from those well acquainted with the subject, and worthy of entire confidence, that, from these causes, there is a mass of talent, industry ay, sir, and virtue too-in our country, idle and useless; and that their number is daily and rapidly increasing. Thousands of individ