part20- 第4部分

justice；　and　that　he　could　be　restrained　from　wrong　and　protected　in

right　by　moderate　powers；　confided　to　persons　of　his　own　choice；　and

held　to　their　duties　by　dependence　on　his　own　will。　　We　believed　that

the　complicated　organization　of　kings；　nobles；　and　priests；　was　not

the　wisest　nor　best　to　effect　the　happiness　of　associated　man；　that

wisdom　and　virtue　were　not　hereditary；　that　the　trappings　of　such　a

machinery；　consumed　by　their　expense；　those　earnings　of　industry；

they　were　meant　to　protect；　and；　by　the　inequalities　they　produced；

exposed　liberty　to　sufferance。　　We　believed　that　men；　enjoying　in

ease　and　security　the　full　fruits　of　their　own　industry；　enlisted　by

all　their　interests　on　the　side　of　law　and　order；　habituated　to　think

for　themselves；　and　to　follow　their　reason　as　their　guide；　would　be

more　easily　and　safely　governed；　than　with　minds　nourished　in　error；

and　vitiated　and　debased；　as　in　Europe；　by　ignorance；　indigence　and

oppression。　　The　cherishment　of　the　people　then　was　our　principle；

the　fear　and　distrust　of　them；　that　of　the　other　party。　　Composed；　as

we　were；　of　the　landed　and　laboring　interests　of　the　country；　we

could　not　be　less　anxious　for　a　government　of　law　and　order　than　were

the　inhabitants　of　the　cities；　the　strongholds　of　federalism。　　And

whether　our　efforts　to　save　the　principles　and　form　of　our

constitution　have　not　been　salutary；　let　the　present　republican

freedom；　order　and　prosperity　of　our　country　determine。　　History　may

distort　truth；　and　will　distort　it　for　a　time；　by　the　superior

efforts　at　justification　of　those　who　are　conscious　of　needing　it

most。　　Nor　will　the　opening　scenes　of　our　present　government　be　seen

in　their　true　aspect；　until　the　letters　of　the　day；　now　held　in

private　hoards；　shall　be　broken　up　and　laid　open　to　public　view。

What　a　treasure　will　be　found　in　General　Washington's　cabinet；　when

it　shall　pass　into　the　hands　of　as　candid　a　friend　to　truth　as　he　was

himself！　　When　no　longer；　like　Caesar's　notes　and　memorandums　in　the

hands　of　Anthony；　it　shall　be　open　to　the　high　priests　of　federalism

only；　and　garbled　to　say　so　much；　and　no　more；　as　suits　their　views！




　　　　　　　　With　respect　to　his　farewell　address；　to　the　authorship　of

which；　it　seems；　there　are　conflicting　claims；　I　can　state　to　you

some　facts。　　He　had　determined　to　decline　re…election　at　the　end　of

his　first　term；　and　so　far　determined；　that　he　had　requested　Mr。

Madison　to　prepare　for　him　something　valedictory；　to　be　addressed　to

his　constituents　on　his　retirement。　　This　was　done；　but　he　was

finally　persuaded　to　acquiesce　in　a　second　election；　to　which　no　one

more　strenuously　pressed　him　than　myself；　from　a　conviction　of　the

importance　of　strengthening；　by　longer　habit；　the　respect　necessary

for　that　office；　which　the　weight　of　his　character　only　could　effect。

When；　at　the　end　of　his　second　term；　his　Valedictory　came　out；　Mr。

Madison　recognized　in　it　several　passages　of　his　draught；　several

others；　we　were　both　satisfied；　were　from　the　pen　of　Hamilton；　and

others　from　that　of　the　President　himself。　　These　he　probably　put

into　the　hands　of　Hamilton　to　form　into　a　whole；　and　hence　it　may　all

appear　in　Hamilton's　hand…writing；　as　if　it　were　all　of　his

composition。




　　　　　　　　I　have　stated　above；　that　the　original　objects　of　the

federalists　were；　1st；　to　warp　our　government　more　to　the　form　and

principles　of　monarchy；　and；　2d；　to　weaken　the　barriers　of　the　State

governments　as　coordinate　powers。　　In　the　first　they　have　been　so

completely　foiled　by　the　universal　spirit　of　the　nation；　that　they

have　abandoned　the　enterprise；　shrunk　from　the　odium　of　their　old

appellation；　taken　to　themselves　a　participation　of　ours；　and　under

the　pseudo…republican　mask；　are　now　aiming　at　their　second　object；

and　strengthened　by　unsuspecting　or　apostate　recruits　from　our　ranks；

are　advancing　fast　towards　an　ascendancy。　　I　have　been　blamed　for

saying；　that　a　prevalence　of　the　doctrines　of　consolidation　would　one

day　call　for　reformation　or　_revolution_。　　I　answer　by　asking　if　a

single　State　of　the　Union　would　have　agreed　to　the　constitution；　had

it　given　all　powers　to　the　General　Government？　　If　the　whole

opposition　to　it　did　not　proceed　from　the　jealousy　and　fear　of　every

State；　of　being　subjected　to　the　other　States　in　matters　merely　its

own？　　And　if　there　is　any　reason　to　believe　the　States　more　disposed

now　than　then；　to　acquiesce　in　this　general　surrender　of　all　their

rights　and　powers　to　a　consolidated　government；　one　and　undivided？




　　　　　　　　You　request　me　confidentially；　to　examine　the　question；　whether

the　Supreme　Court　has　advanced　beyond　its　constitutional　limits；　and

trespassed　on　those　of　the　State　authorities？　　I　do　not　undertake　it；

my　dear　Sir；　because　I　am　unable。　　Age　and　the　wane　of　mind

consequent　on　it；　have　disqualified　me　from　investigations　so　severe；

and　researches　so　laborious。　　And　it　is　the　less　necessary　in　this

case；　as　having　been　already　done　by　others　with　a　logic　and　learning

to　which　I　could　add　nothing。　　On　the　decision　of　the　case　of　Cohens

_vs_。　The　State　of　Virginia；　in　the　Supreme　Court　of　the　United

States；　in　March；　1821；　Judge　Roane；　under　the　signature　of　Algernon

Sidney；　wrote　for　the　Enquirer　a　series　of　papers　on　the　law　of　that

case。　　I　considered　these　papers　maturely　as　they　came　out；　and

confess　that　they　appeared　to　me　to　pulverize　every　word　which　had

been　delivered　by　Judge　Marshall；　of　the　extra…judicial　part　of　his

opinion；　and　all　was　extra…judicial；　except　the　decision　that　the　act

of　Congress　had　not　purported　to　give　to　the　corporation　of

Washington　the　authority　claimed　by　their　lottery　law；　of　controlling

the　laws　of　the　States　within　the　States　themselves。　　But　unable　to

claim　that　case；　he　could　not　let　it　go　entirely；　but　went　on

gratuitously　to　prove；　that　notwithstanding　the　eleventh　amendment　of

the　constitution；　a　State　_could_　be　brought　as　a　defendant；　to　the

bar　of　his　court；　and　again；　that　Congress　might　authorize　a

corporation　of　its　territory　to　exercise　legislation　within　a　State；

and　paramount　to　the　laws　of　that　State。　　I　cite　the　sum　and　result

only　of　his　doctrines；　according　to　the　impression　made　on　my　mind　at

the　time；　and　still　remaining。　　If　not　strictly　accurate　in

circumstance；　it　is　so　in　substance。　　This　doctrine　was　so　completely

refuted　by　Roane；　that　if　he　can　be　answered；　I　surrender　human

reason　as　a　vain　and　useless　faculty；　given　to　bewilder；　and　not　to

guide　us。　　And　I　mention　this　particular　case　as　one　only　of　several；

because　it　gave　occasion　to　that　thorough　examination　of　the

constitutional　limits　between　the　General　and　State　jurisdictions；

which　you　have　asked　for。　　There　were　two　other　writers　in　the　same

paper；　under　the　signatures　of　Fletcher　of　Saltoun；　and　Somers；　who；

in　a　few　essays；　presented　some　very　luminous　and　striking　views　of

the　question。　　And　there　was　a　particular　paper　which　recapitulated

all　the　cases　in　which　it　was　thought　the　federal　court　had　usurped

on　the　State　jurisdictions。　　These　essays　will　be　found　in　the

Enquirers　of　1821；　from　May　the　10th　to　July　the　13th。　　It　is　not　in

my　present　power　to　send　them　to　you；　but　if　Ritchie　can　furnish

them；　I　will　procure　and　forward　them。　　If　they　had　been　read　in　the

other　States；　as　they　were　here；　I　think　they　would　have　left；　there

as　here；　no　dissentients　from　their　doctrine。　　The　subject　was　taken

up　by　our　legislature　of　1821　…　'22；　and　two　draughts　of

remonstrances　were　prepared　and　discussed。　　As　well　as　I　remember；

there　was　no　difference　of　opinion　as　to　the　matter　of　right；　but

there　was　as　to　the　expediency　of　a　remonstrance　at　that　time；　the

general　mind　of　the　States　being　then　under　extraordinary　excitement

by　the　Missouri　question；　and　it　was　dropped　on　that　consideration。

But　this　case　is　not　dead；　it　only　sleepeth。　　The　Indian　Chief　said

he　did　not　go　to　war　for　every　petty　injury　by　itself；　but　put　it

into　his　pouch；　and　when　that　was　full；　he　then　made　war。　　Thank

Heaven；　we　have　provided　a　more　peaceable　and　rational　mode　of

redress。




　　　　　　　　This　practice　of　Judge　Marshall；　of　travelling　out　of　his　case

to　prescribe　what　the　law　would　be　in　a　moot　case　not　before　the

court；　is　very　irregular　and　very　censurable。　　I　recollect　another

instance；　and　the　more　particularly；　perhaps；　because　it　in　some

measure　bore　on　myself。　　Among　the　midnight　appointments　of　Mr。

Adams；　were　commissions　to　some　federal　justices　of　the　peace　for

Alexandria。　　These　were　signed　and　sealed　by　him；　but　not　delivered。

I　found　them　on　the　table　of　the　department　of　State；　on　my　entrance

into　office；　and　I　forbade　their　delivery。　　Marbury；　named　in　one　of

them；　applied　to　the　Supreme　Court　for　a　mandamus　to　the　Secretary　of

State；　（Mr。　Madison）　to　deliver　the　commission　intended　for　him。　　The

court　determined　at　once；　that　being　an　original　process；　they　had　no

cognizance　of　it；　and　therefore　the　question　before　them　was　ended。

But　the　Chief　Justice　went　on　to　lay　down　what　the　law　would　be；　had

they　jurisdiction　of　the　case；　to　wit：　that　they　should　command　the

delivery。　　The　object　was　clearly　to　instruct　any　other　court　having

the　jurisdiction；　what　they　should　do　if　Marbury　should　apply　to

them。　　Besides　the　impropriety　of　this　gratuitous　interference；　could

anything　exceed　the　perversion　of　law？　　For　if　there　is　any　principle

of　law　never　yet　contradicted；　it　is　that　delivery　is　one　of　the

essentials　to　the　validity　of　the　deed。　　Although　signed　and　sealed；

yet　as　long　as　it　remains　in　the　hands　of　the　party　himself；　it　is　in

_fieri_　only；　it　is　not　a　deed；　and　can　be　made　so　only　by　its

delivery。　　In　the　hands　of　a　third　person　it　may　be　made　an　escrow。

But　whatever　is　in　the　executive　offices　is　certainly　deemed　to　be　in

the　hands　of　the　President；　and　in　this　case；　was　actually　in　my

hands；　because；　when　I　countermanded