twenty-four to eleven in the Senate, citing the fact that General Desha had carried counties returning seventy-eight out of one hundred representatives. Not to be daunted, the Relief party began to cast about for some methods of revenging themselves on the judges who refused to do their bidding. The governor recommended that, since the judges could not be removed from office, their offices should be removed from them — in other words, that the act organizing the Court of Appeals should be repealed and a new act organizing a new court should be immediately passed, where upon he would appoint, as judges of the "New Court," only men known to be par tisans of the relief party. This plan was adopted. A bill to that effect was introduced and at midnight of De cember 24, 1824, "amid scenes of the wildest excitement, in which personal en counters were narrowly averted, while the governor and lieutenant governor were mingling in the tumult on the floor of the House," the bill was passed by a vote of a bare majority and it at once received the Governor's sanction. From this time on the contest assumed new shape. The " Old Court" declined to recognize the "New Court" as having any authority whatever. The adherents of the Anti-Relief party bitter ly assailed the relief partisans for their attack upon the Constitution and charged them with responsibility for the anarchy that ensued. The names of the two parties were now changed to " Old Court " and " New Court." The latter party justified its action by citing the act of Congress in the early part of Mr. Jefferson's administration abolishing the offices of sixteen United States circuit judges, appointed by Mr. Adams just before his term expired; and also the acts of the legislature of Kentucky twenty-five years previous abolishing the courts of quarter ses sions. The " Old Court" party replied that in both cases those courts had been established by
the legislative body itself while the Consti tution had established the Court of Appeals and left only its organization to the legis lature. The "New Court" people claimed that the legislature had previously reduced the number of judges of the Court of Appeals from four to three, but their opponents said that had only been attempted in case a va cancy should occur, and it was an entirely different thing to legislate out of existence the court itself; that the constitution in tended the Court of Appeals to be a check upon the other departments of government and had provided a check upon it by the power given to the legislature to remove a judge by impeachment or address; that, unless the Constitution should be observed, there could be no security for the people from absolute tyranny on the part of the legislature and that the independence of the judiciary from legislative influence was ab solutely essential to free government. The "Old Court" met and on January 28, 1825, issued an address to the people of Kentucky which is one of the ablest and most dignified State papers ever composed and a most masterly vindication of their course. Replying to the resolutions of the legisla ture they say : — "We will not dwell long upon so much of the preamble as defies public opinion — applauds the people — bows to their power, and places the legislature so near the people in affection and interest as absolutely to supply the place of and become the people — while we are placed at a freezing distance, arrayed against the people, usurping their rights — subjecting them to control — and attempting to tyrannize over them — and raised above them by our exorbitant salaries [the judges received a salary at this time of $1200 per annum] . . . We stand this day in a defensive attitude against the united energies of the other departments of government, struggling to support the Constitution of our country, which we assert is assailed by the proceedings in question. After all, what is this war? The laws of God and man have said — "Pay what thou owest." Justice
