Page:The Supreme Court in United States History vol 1.djvu/101

gress, would it not have been more discreet in the panegyrist to have reserved it for the shoulders of the Supreme Court, than to have hastily bestowed it on one Circuit Court; as it cannot cover the shoulders of the three Circuit Courts, it may so happen that they may give different opinions, in which case the other Circuit Courts may justly complain of partiality. The Southern Circuit Court may execute the Law in its full extent without any squeamishness or difficulty; the Eastern Circuit Court may execute the law, as commissioners; while the Middle Circuit Court may refuse to execute it at any rate. … In my next, I shall show that there is nothing in the Constitution to which the law in question is opposed and point out some of the serious and dangerous consequences which may result from a power in the Judges to refuse the performance of duties assigned to them by law.

But to this "Camden" article, the National Gazette retorted that while humanity might be better pleased with the attitude towards the law adopted by the Judges of the Eastern Circuit, "they too have, tho' in a delicate manner, passed sentence of unconstitutionality on the invalid law";^[1] and while "we do not mean to muffle up the Judges any more than Congress in the cloak of infallibility, we wish to see both parties amply clad, that is to say, with the garb of wisdom and righteousness." A month later, this Anti-Federalist paper, in noting "several circumstances highly interesting to the United States" which had marked the session of Congress just closed, said editorially: "The decision of the Judges against the constitutionality of an Act in which the Executive had concurred with the Legislative departments is the first instance in which that branch of the government has withstood the proceed-

1. National Gazette, April 23, May 11, 1792; Boston Gazette, May 28, 1792; New York Daily Advertiser, May 14. 1792; Dunlap's American Daily Advertiser, May 11, 1792; a writer in Claypoole's Daily Advertiser, April 16, 1792, expressed the hope that the Judges "may do the same with the national bank" statute, recently enacted by Congress.