IV. proposed to substitute "an emblematical figure of Liber- CHAPTER ty," but how agree upon that emblem? Liberty, in his idea of it, was that which arose from law and justice, and 1792. which secured every man in his individual and social rights. Others, perhaps, had in their minds something little better than the liberty of savages, the relinquishment of all law that contradicted or thwarted their passions and desires. Some gentlemen might think a bear broke loose from his chains a fit emblem of liberty; others might prefer a different device. He could hardly conceive of any adapted to the case of these states, which justly boasted of having always been free. He thought the head of the President of the United States quite as good an emblem of liberty as any other. Mercer, of Maryland, replied with a good deal of asperity. There was a rule in the British House of Commons that the name of the king should never be mentioned in any debate, and he thought that some such rule might be advantageously adopted by this house. It would be no honor to the president to pay him a compliment which might be shared by persons no better than Nero, Caligula, or Heliogabalus. Seney, one of Mercer's colleagues, reflected severely on the Senate for having rejected the amendment without taking time to deliberate on the reasons in its favor. Giles thought this proposition to place the president's head on the coin, very much of a piece with the first act of the Senate. "It had a very near affinity to titles, that darling child of the other branch of the Legislature, put out at nurse for the present, but intended to be recognized hereafter with all due form." Benson ridiculed the idea of the people being enslaved by their presidents, or, what was still less likely, by the president's image on the coin. Page, in reply, was very sorry that some men ridiculed republican CHAPTER caution. It was the duty of members to watch over the IV. liberties of the country, and they ought not to be treated 1792. with levity for doing so. It was as a watchman for liberty that he warned his constituents of the danger of imitating the almost idolatrous practice of monarchies as to the honor paid to kings, by impressing their images and names on the current coin. He wished to add as few incentives as possible to competition for the presi dent's place. He warned the country against the cabals, the corruption, and animosities which might be excited by the intrigues of ambitious men, animated by the hope of handing down their names to the latest ages on the medals of their country. An honor so indiscriminate was unworthy of the president's acceptance. To limit it to the present chief magistrate would be less objectionable, but the Senate knew that the president's delicacy would not permit him to sign such a bill, which might, indeed, blast his reputation, and therefore they had extended the compliment to all his successors. was a friend of the president, and had shown it on proper occasions. The country was under obligations to him; but lovers of liberty and friends to the rights of man would be cautious of the ways in which they expressed their sense of that obligation. He The House insisted on their amendment, and the Senate yielded. It was some time, however, before the artists could come to an agreement as to the proper emblematical figure; and Boudinot, at the next session, attempted, though without success, to substitute in place of it the head of Columbus. Some allusions, in the course of this debate, to the new French Constitution, in which the incongruous attempt had been made to combine an hereditary chief magistrate with a form of government in all other respects IV. essentially democratic, were among the earliest referen- CHAPTER ces in Congress to the subject of French politics. It was only a few days before that the president had communi- 1792. cated to Congress a letter from Louis XVI., announcing All his signature to that instrument, and its having thereby The passage, by the former Congress, of a permanent act to regulate processes issuing from the courts of the United States, had been prevented by a difference of opinion as to the proper style of the writs, whether they should issue in the name of the president, or, conformably to the practice of the states, in the name of the people or of the commonwealth. This point had been evaded by the passage of a temporary act, by which the form of writs, except their style, for which no provision was made, and which was thus left to the discretion of the court, was to conform in each state to the usage of the Supreme Court of that state. The writs framed under this provision had been made to issue in the name of the President of the United States, and the forms adopted, except their style, were now confirmed by law, subject to such changes as the Supreme Court might order. Any direct approval was thus avoided of the monarchical usagefor so the ultra Republicans esteemed it—of issuing writs in the president's name: a usage, however, in which the IV. CHAPTER Courts still persist. The same act confirmed and sanctioned the adoption, by the respective district and cir1792. cuit courts, in actions at common law, of the method of procedure in use in the state courts of each respective district; but a discretion was given to the Supreme Court to make such changes as they might judge expedient. Subject to the same discretion on the part of the Supreme Court, the proceedings in equity and admiralty cases were to be "according to the principles, rules, and usages which belong to courts of equity and to courts of admiralty respectively, as contradistinguished from courts of law"-a provision construed by the Supreme Court to authorize the adoption of the forms and methods of the English Courts of Chancery and Admiralty. The resolution of the first Congress, requesting of the states the use of their jails for federal purposes, having been generally complied with, an act for the relief of persons imprisoned for debt under processes from the courts of the United States extended to such prisoners the same privileges, as to jail limits, enjoyed by those confined in the same jails under state authority. Any prisoner, on taking an oath of poverty, was to be supported at the expense of the creditor, at the rate of one dollar weekly, otherwise to be discharged, his person to be thenceforth free, but his property to continue liable for the debt. John Rutledge had resigned his seat on the bench of the Supreme Court, in consequence of an appointment as Chief Justice of South Carolina. The place had been offered first to Edward Rutledge, and then to Charles C. Pinckney; but both excused themselves, alleging that they could be more useful to the government out of office than in it. Finally, the vacant seat was given to Thomas Johnson, late governor of Maryland, and an early member of the Continental Congress, it having been on IV. his motion that Washington had been appointed com- CHAPTER mander-in-chief; but he did not long retain it. An act on the subject of invalid pensions, by the nu- 1792. merous applications for which, growing out of casualties in the Revolutionary war, Congress had been a good deal embarrassed, gave to the federal courts the first occasion to vindicate, as against the legislature, their dignity and rights. This act directed that claimants for pensions should exhibit to the federal circuit court of their respective districts the evidence of their claims; and all to whom the courts granted certificates were to be placed on the pension list by the Secretary of War, unless he had cause to suspect some imposition or mistake, in which case he was to report the matter to Congress. Applications hav ing been made under this act, not long after its passage, to the Circuit Court for the District of New York, the judges, Jay being one, represented to the president that the act, so far as related to them, was unconstitutional and void, because Congress had no right to impose upon them any thing but purely judicial duties, nor to give to the Secretary of War, to Congress, or to any body else a revisory power over their proceedings. At the same time they expressed their readiness, acting, not as judges, but as commissioners, to make the investigations required." Similar representations were made by the circuit courts. of Pennsylvania and North Carolina. To bring this question to a solemn decision, the Attorney General of the United States finally moved in the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania, ordering them to entertain and exercise, as judges, the jurisdiction imposed by the Pension Act. An argument was had on this application, but before any formal decision was pronounced, Congress repealed the obnoxious law. This, however, did not occur till the next session. |