part20-第6章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



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

hands；　because；　when　I　countermanded　them；　there　was　as　yet　no

Secretary　of　State。　　Yet　this　case　of　Marbury　and　Madison　is

continually　cited　by　bench　and　bar；　as　if　it　were　settled　law；

without　any　animadversion　on　its　being　merely　an　_obiter_

dissertation　of　the　Chief　Justice。




　　　　　　　　It　may　be　impracticable　to　lay　down　any　general　formula　of

words　which　shall　decide　at　once；　and　with　precision；　in　every　case；

this　limit　of　jurisdiction。　　But　there　are　two　canons　which　will

guide　us　safely　in　most　of　the　cases。　　1st。　The　capital　and　leading

object　of　the　constitution　was　to　leave　with　the　States　all

authorities　which　respected　their　own　citizens　only；　and　to　transfer

to　the　United　States　those　which　respected　citizens　of　foreign　or

other　States：　to　make　us　several　as　to　ourselves；　but　one　as　to　all

others。　　In　the　latter　case；　then；　constructions　should　lean　to　the

general　jurisdiction；　if　the　words　will　bear　it；　and　in　favor　of　the

States　in　the　former；　if　possible　to　be　so　construed。　　And　indeed；

between　citizens　and　citizens　of　the　same　State；　and　under　their　own

laws；　I　know　but　a　single　case　in　which　a　jurisdiction　is　given　to

the　General　Government。　　That　is；　where　anything　but　gold　or　silver

is　made　a　lawful　tender；　or　the　obligation　of　contracts　is　any

otherwise　impaired。　　The　separate　legislatures　had　so　often　abused

that　power；　that　the　citizens　themselves　chose　to　trust　it　to　the

general；　rather　than　to　their　own　special　authorities。　　2d。　On　every

question　of　construction；　carry　ourselves　back　to　the　time　when　the

constitution　was　adopted；　recollect　the　spirit　manifested　in　the

debates；　and　instead　of　trying　what　meaning　may　be　squeezed　out　of

the　text；　or　invented　against　it；　conform　to　the　probable　one　in

which　it　was　passed。　　Let　us　try　Cohen's　case　by　these　canons　only；

referring　always；　however；　for　full　argument；　to　the　essays　before

cited。




　　　　　　　　1。　It　was　between　a　citizen　and　his　own　State；　and　under　a　law

of　his　State。　　It　was　a　domestic　case；　therefore；　and　not　a　foreign

one。




　　　　　　　　2。　Can　it　be　believed；　that　under　the　jealousies　prevailing

against　the　General　Government；　at　the　adoption　of　the　constitution；

the　States　meant　to　surrender　the　authority　of　preserving　order；　of

enforcing　moral　duties　and　restraining　vice；　within　their　own

territory？　　And　this　is　the　present　case；　that　of　Cohen　being　under

the　ancient　and　general　law　of　gaming。　　Can　any　good　be　effected　by

taking　from　the　States　the　moral　rule　of　their　citizens；　and

subordinating　it　to　the　general　authority；　or　to　one　of　their

corporations；　which　may　justify　forcing　the　meaning　of　words；　hunting

after　possible　constructions；　and　hanging　inference　on　inference；

from　heaven　to　earth；　like　Jacob's　ladder？　　Such　an　intention　was

impossible；　and　such　a　licentiousness　of　construction　and　inference；

if　exercised　by　both　governments；　as　may　be　done　with　equal　right；

would　equally　authorize　both　to　claim　all　power；　general　and

particular；　and　break　up　the　foundations　of　the　Union。　　Laws　are　made

for　men　of　ordinary　understanding；　and　should；　therefore；　be

construed　by　the　ordinary　rules　of　common　sense。　　Their　meaning　is

not　to　be　sought　for　in　metaphysical　subtleties；　which　may　make

anything　mean　everything　or　nothing；　at　pleasure。　　It　should　be　left

to　the　sophisms　of　advocates；　whose　trade　it　is；　to　prove　that　a

defendant　is　a　plaintiff；　though　dragged　into　court；　_torto　collo_；

like　Bonaparte's　volunteers；　into　the　field　in　chains；　or　that　a

power　has　been　given；　because　it　ought　to　have　been　given；　_et　alia

talia_。　　The　States　supposed　that　by　their　tenth　amendment；　they　had

secured　themselves　against　constructive　powers。　　They　were　not

lessoned　yet　by　Cohen's　case；　nor　aware　of　the　slipperiness　of　the

eels　of　the　law。　　I　ask　for　no　straining　of　words　against　the　General

Government；　nor　yet　against　the　States。　　I　believe　the　States　can

best　govern　our　home　concerns；　and　the　General　Government　our　foreign

ones。　　I　wish；　therefore；　to　see　maintained　that　wholesome

distribution　of　powers　established　by　the　constitution　for　the

limitation　of　both；　and　never　to　see　all　offices　transferred　to

Washington；　where；　further　withdrawn　from　the　eyes　of　the　people；

they　may　more　secretly　be　bought　and　sold　as　at　market。




　　　　　　　　But　the　Chief　Justice　says；　〃there　must　be　an　ultimate　arbiter

somewhere。〃　True；　there　must；　but　does　that　prove　it　is　either　party？

The　ultimate　arbiter　is　the　people　of　the　Union；　assembled　by　their

deputies　in　convention；　at　the　call　of　Congress；　or　of　two…thirds　of

the　States。　　Let　them　decide　to　which　they　mean　to　give　an　authority

claimed　by　two　of　their　organs。　　And　it　has　been　the　peculiar　wisdom

and　felicity　of　our　constitution；　to　have　provided　this　peaceable

appeal；　where　that　of　other　nations　is　at　once　to　force。




　　　　　　　　I　rejoice　in　the　example　you　set　of　_seriatim_　opinions。　　I

have　heard　it　often　noticed；　and　always　with　high　approbation。　　Some

of　your　brethren　will　be　encouraged　to　follow　it　occasionally；　and　in

time；　it　may　be　felt　by　all　as　a　duty；　and　the　sound　practice　of　the

primitive　court　be　again　restored。　　Why　should　not　every　judge　be

asked　his　opinion；　and　give　it　from　the　bench；　if　only　by　yea　or　nay？

Besides　ascertaining　the　fact　of　his　opinion；　which　the　public　have　a

right　to　know；　in　order　to　judge　whether　it　is　impeachable　or　not；　it

would　show　whether　the　opinions　were　unanimous　or　not；　and　thus

settle　more　exactly　the　weight　of　their　authority。




　　　　　　　　The　close　of　my　second　sheet　warns　me　that　it　is　time　now　to

relieve　you　from　this　letter　of　unmerciful　length。　　Indeed；　I　wonder

how　I　have　accomplished　it；　with　two　crippled　wrists；　the　one

scarcely　able　to　move　my　pen；　the　other　to　hold　my　paper。　　But　I　am

hurried　sometimes　beyond　the　sense　of　pain；　when　unbosoming　myself　to

friends　who　harmonize　with　me　in　principle。　　You　and　I　may　differ

occasionally　in　details　of　minor　consequence；　as　no　two　minds；　more

than　two　faces；　are　the　same　in　every　feature。　　But　our　general

objects　are　the　same；　to　preserve　the　republican　form　and　principles

of　our　constitution　and　cleave　to　the　salutary　distribution　of　powers

which　that　has　established。　　These　are　the　two　sheet　anchors　of　our

Union。　　If　driven　from　either；　we　shall　be　in　danger　of　foundering。

To　my　prayers　for　its　safety　and　perpetuity；　I　add　those　for　the

continuation　of　your　health；　happiness；　and　usefulness　to　your

country。







　　　　　　　　〃RIVERS　OF　BLOOD　MUST　YET　FLOW〃




　　　　　　　　_To　John　Adams_

　　　　　　　　_Monticello；　Sep。　4；　1823_




　　　　　　　　DEAR　SIR；　　Your　letter　of　Aug。　15。　was　recieved　in　due　time；

and　with　the　welcome　of　every　thing　which　comes　from　you。　　With　it's

opinions　on　the　difficulties　of　revolutions；　from　despotism　to

freedom；　I　very　much　concur。　　The　generation　which　commences　a

revolution　can　rarely　compleat　it。　　Habituated　from　their　infancy　to

passive　submission　of　body　and　mind　to　their　kings　and　priests；　they

are　not　qualified；　when　called　on；　to　think　and　provide　for

themselves　and　their　inexperience；　their　ignorance　and　bigotry　make

them　instruments　often；　in　the　hands　of　the　Bonapartes　and　Iturbides

to　defeat　their　own　rights　and　purposes。　　This　is　the　present

situation　of　Europe　and　Spanish　America。　　But　it　is　not　desperate。

The　light　which　has　been　shed　on　mankind　by　the　art　of　printing　has

eminently　changed　the　condition　of　the　world。　　As　yet　that　light　has

dawned　on　the　midling　classes　only　of　the　men　of　Europe。　　The　kings

and　the　rabble　of　equal　ignorance；　have　not　yet　recieved　it's　rays；

but　it　continues　to　spread。　　And；　while　printing　is　preserved；　it　can

no　more　recede　than　the　sun　return　on　his　course。　　A　first　attempt　to

recover　the　right　of　self…government　may　fail；　so　may　a　2d。　a　3d。

etc。；　but　as　a　younger；　and　more　instructed　race　comes　on；　the

se