The Life of John Marshall, Volume 3: Conflict and construction, 1800-1815. Beveridge Albert Jeremiah
rel="nofollow" href="#n464" type="note">464 They would not adjudge an insane man to be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, but they were not yet independent enough to vote against their party.465 This, however, did not alarm the Republican managers. They instantly struck the next blow upon which they had determined more than two years before. Within an hour after John Pickering was convicted the House voted to impeach Samuel Chase.
Marshall's irascible associate on the Supreme Bench had given the Republicans a new and serious cause for hostilities against him. In less than two months after Marshall had delivered the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Marbury vs. Madison, Justice Chase, in charging the grand jury at Baltimore, denounced Republican principles and mercilessly assailed Republican acts and purposes.
This judicial critic of democracy told the grand jury that "the bulk of mankind are governed by their passions, and not by reason… The late alteration of the federal judiciary … and the recent change in our state constitution, by the establishing of universal suffrage, … will … take away all security for property and personal liberty … and our republican constitution will sink into a mobocracy, the worst of all popular governments."
Chase condemned "the modern doctrines by our late reformers, that all men, in a state of society, are entitled to enjoy equal liberty and equal rights, [which] have brought this mighty mischief upon us"; – a mischief which he feared "will rapidly progress, until peace and order, freedom and property, shall be destroyed… Will justice be impartially administered by judges dependent on the legislature for their … suport? Will liberty or property be protected or secured, by laws made by representatives chosen by electors, who have no property in, or a common interest with, or attachment to, the community?"466
Burning with anger, a young Republican member of the Maryland Legislature, John Montgomery, who had listened to this judicial tirade, forthwith savagely denounced Chase in the Baltimore American.467 He demanded that the Justice be impeached and removed from the bench.468 Montgomery hastened to send to the President469 a copy of the paper.
Jefferson promptly wrote Nicholson: "Ought this seditious and official attack on the principles of our Constitution, and on the proceedings of a State, go unpunished? And, to whom so pointedly as yourself will the public look for the necessary measures?"
But Jefferson was not willing to appear openly. With that uncanny power of divining political currents to which coarser or simpler minds were oblivious, he was conscious of the uneasiness of Northern Republicans over ruthless impeachment and decided not to become personally responsible. "For myself," he cautioned Nicholson, "it is better that I should not interfere."470
Upon the advice of Nathaniel Macon,471 Republican Speaker of the House, Nicholson concluded that it would be more prudent for another to take the lead. It was well understood that he was to have Chase's place on the Supreme Bench,472 and this fact would put him at a disadvantage if he became the central figure in the fight against the aged Justice. The procurement of the impeachment was, therefore, placed in the eager hands of John Randolph, that "unusual Phenomenon," as John Adams called him,473 whose lust for conspicuous leadership was insatiable.
The Republican managers had carefully moulded public opinion into the belief that Chase was guilty of some monstrous crime. Months before articles of impeachment were presented to the House, ex parte statements against him were collected, published in pamphlet form, and scattered throughout the country. To assure wider publicity all this "evidence" was printed in the Republican organ at Washington. The accused Justice had, therefore, been tried and convicted by the people before the charges against him were even offered in the House.474
This preparation of the popular mind accomplished, Chase was finally impeached. Eight articles setting forth the Republican accusations were laid before the Senate. Chase was accused of everything of which anybody had complained since his appointment to the Supreme Bench. His conduct at the trials of Fries and Callender was set forth with tedious particularity: in Delaware he had stooped "to the level of an informer"; his charge to the grand jury at Baltimore was an "intemperate and inflamatory political harangue"; he had prostituted his "high judicial character … to the low purpose of an electioneering partizan"; his purpose was "to excite … odium … against the government."475
This curious scramble of fault-finding, which was to turn out so fatally for the prosecution, was the work of Randolph. When the conglomerate indictment was drawn, no one, except perhaps Jefferson, had the faintest idea that the Republican plan would miscarry; Randolph's multifarious charges pleased those in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland who had first made them; they were so drawn as to lay a foundation for the assault which was to follow immediately. "These articles," wrote John Quincy Adams, "contained in themselves a virtual impeachment not only of Mr. Chase, but of all the Judges of the Supreme Court from the first establishment of the national judiciary."476
In an extended and carefully prepared speech, Senator Giles, who had drawn the rules governing the conduct of the trial in the Senate, announced the Republican view of impeachment which, he said, "is nothing more than an enquiry, by the two Houses of Congress, whether the office of any public man might not be better filled by another." Adams was convinced that "this is undoubtedly the source and object of Mr. Chase's impeachment, and on the same principle any officer may easily be removed at any time."477
From the time the House took action against Chase, the Federalists were in despair. "I think the Judge will be removed from Office," was Senator Plumer's opinion.478 "The event of the impeachment is already determined," wrote Bayard before the trial began.479 Pickering was certain that Chase would be condemned – so would any man that the House might impeach; such "measures … are made questions of party, and therefore at all events to be carried into effect according to the wishes of the prime mover [Jefferson]."480
As the day of the arraignment of the impeached Justice approached, his friends were not comforted by their estimate of the public temper. "Our public … will be as tame as Mr. Randolph can desire," lamented Ames. "You may broil Judge Chase and eat him, or eat him raw; it shall stir up less anger or pity, than the Six Nations would show, if Cornplanter or Red Jacket were refused a belt of wampum."481
When finally Chase appeared before the bar of the Senate, he begged that the trial should be postponed until next session, in order that he might have time to prepare his defense. His appeal fell on remorseless ears; the Republicans gave him only a month. But this scant four weeks proved fatal to their purpose. Jefferson's wise adjustment of the greatest financial scandal in American history482 came before the House during this interval; and fearless, honest, but impolitic John Randolph attacked the Administration's compromise of the Yazoo fraud with a ferocity all but insane in its violence. Literally screaming with rage, he assailed Jefferson's Postmaster-General who was lobbying on the floor of the House for the passage of the President's Yazoo plan, and delivered continuous philippics against that polluted transaction out of which later came the third of John Marshall's most notable opinions.483
In this frame of mind, nervously exhausted, physically overwrought and troubled, the most brilliant and effective Congressional partisan leader of our early history came to the trial. Moreover, Randolph had broken with the Administration and challenged Jefferson's hitherto undisputed partisan autocracy. This was the first public manifestation of that schism in the Republican Party
465
The Republicans even refused to allow the report of the proceedings to be "printed in the Appendix to the Journals of the Session." (
The conviction and removal of Pickering alarmed the older Federalists almost as much as did the repeal of the Judiciary Act. "The
"I really wish those in New England who are boasting of the independence of our Judiciary would reflect on what a slender tenure Judges hold their offices whose political sentiments are at variance with the dominant party." (Plumer to Park, March 13, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.)
466
Exhibit viii,
467
June 13, 1803.
468
See
469
See McMaster:
470
Jefferson to Nicholson, May 13, 1803,
471
Macon to Nicholson, Aug. 6, 1803, Dodd:
472
Dodd, 187-88.
473
Adams to Rush, June 22, 1806,
474
Chase "is very obnoxious to the
475
See
The Republicans, for a time, contemplated the impeachment of Richard Peters, Judge of the United States Court for the District of Pennsylvania, who sat with Chase during the trial of Fries. (
Peters was terrified and turned upon his fellow judge. He showered Pickering and other friends with letters, complaining of the conduct of his judicial associate. "If I am to be immolated let it be with some other Victim – or for my own Sins." (Peters to Pickering, Jan. 26, 1804, Pickering MSS. Mass. Hist. Soc.)
476
J. Q. Adams to his father, March 14, 1805,
477
Dec. 20, 1804,
478
Plumer to Cogswell, Jan. 4, 1805, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.; and see Plumer to Sheafe, Jan. 9, 1805, Plumer MSS.
479
Bayard to Harper, Jan. 30, 1804,
480
Pickering to Lyman, March 14, 1804, Lodge:
481
Ames to Dwight, Jan. 20, 1805, Ames, i, 338.
482
The Yazoo fraud. No other financial scandal in our history equaled this, if one considers the comparative wealth and population of the country at the times other various great frauds were perpetrated. For an account of it, see
483
For Randolph's frantic speech on the Yazoo fraud and Marshall's opinion in Fletcher