makes one wonder whether he was not trying to effect a revolution which none but the initiated would suspect of being revolutionary. Nor can his silence on this point be explained by the supposition that he did not realize the danger. His private correspondence shows that he realized it vividly. At the very time that he was asking Congress to consider whether the judiciary system was not unnecessarily expensive, he was writing to his friends about its hostility to Republicanism. "They (the Federalists) have retired into the judiciary as into a stronghold," he wrote to John Dickinson in December, 1801. "There the remains of Federalism are to be preserved, and fed from the treasury, and from that battery all the works of Republicanism are to be beaten down and erased." Eighteen years later, he declared that this prediction was being fulfilled. "The nation declared its will" (in 1800), he wrote to Judge Roane in 1819, "by dismissing functionaries of one principle and electing those of another, in the two branches, executive and legislative, submitted to their election. That, therefore, has continued the reprobated system, and although new matter has been occasionally incorporated into the old, yet the leaven of the old mass seems to assimilate to itself the new ** and we find the judiciary on every occasion, still driving us into consolidation." But he neglected to say that when he ruled his party with an absoluteness never surpassed by any President of the United States except Andrew Jackson, no word of recommendation escaped his lips to change the constitution so as to make it possible to give expression in all departments of the government to the "revolution of 1800," If it be said that his silence in 1800, was due to the obvious fact that his party was not then strong enough to carry an amendment to the constitution, that explanation fails to account for his silence concerning the Judiciary Act of 1789. Not even the Alien and Sedition laws struck a more powerful blow at the theory of Republicanism than did that law. It provided, as we know, that in cases before the state courts where the powers of the general government were involved, and the decision had been unfavorable to them, an appeal might be taken to the Supreme Court. But that made the state judiciaries subordinate to the Federal judiciary, made the Federal government the final judge " of the extent of the powers delegated to itself." And yet Jefferson left on the statute books of the United States this law, when a word from him would have erased it, which, from his point of view, made "the discretion" of the general government, and not "the constitution, the measure of its powers." To have spoken that word would indeed have been to raise a tempest of indignation such as few Presidents have ever encountered. But, as the sequel will show, Jefferson was a man of courage. And if the difference between Federalism and Republicanism was as vital as he insisted, if the hopes of the world depended on realizing the Re publican ideal, would it not have been wiser to encounter the storm rather than permit the continuance of a law which was gnawing away at the vitals of Republicanism, in the very hour of its apparent triumph? * Whatever the cause of his silence, that silence was one of the great forces of American history. That he was sincere in his Republicanism, that it was the ruling passion of his life, ought not to be questioned to-day by any competent student of history. Indeed, it is probable that it was precisely because of his devotion to the people that he was guilty of such apparent inconsistencies. To put as much power as possible in the hands of the people, was the great aim of his public life. If he had been the radical doctrinaire, the fanatical visionary, his opponents thought him, he would have risked everything to secure his complete ideal. But, as he was a statesman, it seemed to him wiser to take some steps toward the realization of his ideal than to go in the contrary direction because he could not reach his goal. In speaking of the portion of the judiciary system recently erected, he referred to a law passed by the Federalists in 1801 (February 13). Before its of 1801, passage the judiciary system consisted of Judiciary Act one Supreme Court with six judges, and of fifteen District Courts, each having a single judge. The United States was divided into three circuits. judges of the Supreme Court held two terms a year at The *Cf. Henry Adams, I, 254–261. Washington, and twice a year made the tour of their circuits. The law of 1801 provided for one Supreme Court of five judges, when the first vacancy occurred; six Circuit Courts, each having three judges, excepting one circuit which was to have but one; and twenty-three District Courts, each with a single judge as before. The increased expense caused by the new law amounted to about thirty thousand dollars a year. To save this expense was the point to which Jefferson called attention as the reason for repealing it. QUESTIONS. 1. What reason did Jefferson assign for substituting a message for the speeches which his predecessors had delivered to Congress? What was the true reason? 2. What reason did he assign for recommending the repeal of internal taxes? What was the true reason? 3. Jefferson said that the general government was charged with the external and mutual relations only of the state. What did he mean? 4. What was his strongest objection to the Federalist theory of government? 5. Why did he not state it? 6. What objection did Jefferson make to the judiciary system in his message? What in his private correspondence? 7. Why did he not state his whole thoughts in his message? 8. Show that the judiciary system of the United States is not in harmony with Democracy. 9. How would it have to be reformed to make it so? it inconsistent with the opinions of Jefferson? 11. Why did not Jefferson recommend its repeal? 12. What was the Judiciary Act which was passed in 1801? CHAPTER XXVI. NORTHERN DEMOCRATS AND SOUTHERN REPUBLICANS. HE Congress which met in December, 1801, passed THE three important laws: One, providing for an annual appropriation of $7,300,000 to be devoted to the payment of the public debt; another, repealing the internal taxes: a third, repealing the Judiciary Act, passed laws. in the last month of Adams' administration. Three important The first two it is unnecessary to say, were a part of Gallatin's financial policy. That policy, as we know, aimed to accomplish political objects which might justly be said to be revolutionary in their character. But as the message of the President had recommended these measures on financial grounds only, it was on these grounds only that they were advocated by his followers in Congress. Measures which were a part of a system which was intended to give the United States a unique place in the history of the world, and Jefferson's administration a unique place in the history of the United States, were defended on the sole ground of their expediency from a financial point of view. It is probable, indeed, that a majority of the men who voted for them were influenced by nothing but financial considerations. As Jefferson was both a States Rights Republican and a Democrat, his party was composed of States Rights Republicans and Democrats. |