It was common, thirty years ago, to charge Mr. Jefferson with deliberate wickedness in his office; and to consider him as intending to disregard all the obligations which honorable, moral men, acknowledge. This was, probably, an injustice. It is more reasonable to suppose, that he had either a singular obliquity of perception, as to right, and wrong, both as a man and as an officer; or, that he had undergone some strange perversion from that rank of moral agents, to which he was, by nature, destined. His adversaries made no such apologies for him. They believed that he did wrong, knowing that it was wrong, and because he meant to do wrong. Accordingly they portrayed him in the public prints, at full length. Some of his friends had the indiscretion to introduce some of these sketches to the notice of the House of Representatives in Massachusetts, at the session in January, 1805. The newspaper in which the commentaries alluded to appeared, was published by the printers of the House. The object of the motion was to have the printers dismissed. It did not succeed. If these delineations of Mr. Jefferson were to go down as authentic proofs of the character of the man, he would fare but indifferently with that cool judgment of posterity, to which he confidently appeals. It is not intended to revive these personal criminations. Whether the assertions, so made, were mere calumnies, or truths, modified as they may have been, is immaterial to the present American public. His official conduct is most material, not only to the community of this day; but it is to be feared, that it may be so, to every community, which is hereafter to arise in our country.

LETTER XL.

JUNE 30, 1833.

MR. JEFFERSON's opinions on the Judiciary were among the most mischievous of any which he entertained. He had a rooted dislike to Courts; particularly to those which were established at the recommendation of his friend, John Adams, as barriers against such encroachments as Mr. Jefferson was supposed to intend. These courts were not only constitutionally independent, but the judges who had been placed therein, were, nearly all, federalists.

If there be anything which is capable of sustaining popular governments, and keeping their action within legitimate. constitutional boundaries, it is a learned, self-respecting, independent judiciary. To make the administration of justice, and all questions on the excess of power, dependent on popular excitement, is to assume, that mere human passion is the best arbiter of right and wrong. On this subject, Mr. Jefferson entertained, and disseminated, the most exceptionable doctrines. This seems to have been his theory: The people are the sovereign; whatsoever they will is the law; they choose me to declare their will. My will is the law; because the people's will can be no otherwise disclosed than by expressing my own. He seems to have been incapable of conceiving, that the people established judicial courts to control all of their own number, who should violate their own laws; and to control their own legislators, if they exceeded the limits of authority which the people had assigned to them by the constitution. Much less could he

conceive, that courts could bind him to

his doing, whatsoever he thought right.

do, or could prevent

This was not tur

pitude in him, but inability to distinguish between right and wrong, as to the exercise of judicial power.

Whether this view of Mr. Jefferson is a correct one or not, may be judged of by the following extracts from his volumes. How many much stronger expressions may have been found therein, if his editor had thought fit to publish all of them, can only be conjectured.

"The principal of them (federal leaders) have retreated "into the judiciary, as a strong hold, the tenure of which "renders it difficult to dislodge them." (Letter to Joel Barlow, vol. iii. p. 458, March 14, 1801.)

"The courts being so decidedly federal, and irremovable, it is believed, that republican attorneys, and marshals, being the doors of entrance into the courts, are indispensably necessary as a shield to the republican part of our fellow-citizens, which, I believe, is the main body of the people." (Letter to W. B. Giles, March 23, 1801, vol. iii. p. 464.)

The celebrated Luther Martin was counsel for Burr. Mr. Jefferson frequently wrote to George Hay, conductor of the prosecution, during the trial. In a letter, (June 19, 1807, vol. iv. p. 87,) he says: "Shall we move to commit "Luther Martin, as particeps criminis with Burr? Graybell "will fix upon him misprision of treason at least; and, at any "rate, his evidence will put down this unprincipled, and "impudent federal bull-dog, and add another proof, that the most clamorous defenders of Burr, are all his accomplices." This is a picture of Thomas Jefferson, drawn by himself, and presented to the world by one of his own family! Observe, that it is the chief executive officer of the United States, interposing in a judicial trial, to deprive the accused of counsel, who had no more to do with the crimes charged upon Burr, than Jefferson had.

"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps "of sappers and miners, constantly working under ground, "to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. "They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination

66

"of a general and special government, to a general and supreme one. This will lay all things at their feet; and "they are too well versed in English law, to forget the "maxim, boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem. We "shall see if they are bold enough to make the stride their "five lawyers have lately taken. If they do, then with the "editor of our book, in his address to the public, I will say, should raise his voice;' and (Letter to T. Ritchie, De

"that against this, every man 'more, should lift his arm."*

cember, 1820, vol. iv. p. 336.)

In 1816, Mr. Jefferson appears to have been asked for an opinion, in a contemplated amendment of the Virginia constitution. He says, (vol. iv. p. 288,) "It has been thought "the people are not competent electors of judges learned in "the law, but I do not know that this is true; and if doubtful we should follow the principle. In this, as in many other elections, they would be guided by reputation, which would "not err, oftener, perhaps, than the present mode of ap"pointment." In page 289, he sums up his theories: "1. "General suffrage. 2. Equal representation in the legisla 3. An executive chosen by the people. 4. Judges "elective or amovable. 5. Justices, jurors, and sheriffs, "elective."

"ture.

These were opinions, on the judiciary, not to be wondered at, in a man, who thought a rebellion, once in twenty years, a useful political occurrence. Such, however, were his opinions, after an experience in political life, prolonged through half a century. It has already been noticed, that when he had come into office, he assumed to pronounce laws, constitutionally enacted, and which had been pronounced by the highest judicial tribunal to be laws, absolutely void, because they had not his approbation. Mr. Jefferson was as much bound

* It is not recollected what Mr. Jefferson here refers to; either as to "five lawyers" or as to "our book."

by laws which he disliked, as by any other laws, which he had sworn to execute. Thus, it was his opinion, that an act of the two branches of Congress, approved by the President, and decided by the Supreme Court to be constitutional, could be defeated by one man, who happened to be raised to the executive power.

LETTER XLI.

JULY 7, 1833.

WHEN Congress met in December, 1801, Mr. Jefferson's message, (for he chose to depart from the federal practice of going to meet Congress, and making a speech, and because a speech may be answered, and a message cannot,) suggested a revision of all federal measures, and an abrogation of them, so far as they were within congressional reach. This was done in his own plausible manner. He had a subservient Congress, who needed only to know what he thought was right, to think it so themselves. He suggested the repeal of taxes, the reduction of the diplomatic corps, the hauling up of the navy, the abolition of offices, and revision of the judiciary system. The last suggestion was intended to get at John Adams's "midnight judges" in their " strong hold." He says, in his message, that he had sent into every state to inquire into the whole number of causes tried, since the institution of the national government, and should submit the result of his inquiries; as though the number of suits was the measure of utility, and necessity, of the existing organization. In this session a bill was introduced to repeal the recent law re-organizing the

courts.

While this bill was under discussion, the highly respect