the repeal and this postponement, denouncing the whole
proceedings as unconstitutional and the motive as impure.
It might be said and truly that they had no right to meet
by the law; yet, as they would claim to meet under the
Constitution, to remonstrate against the law as having
violated the Constitution, it is probable that that objection
would not be attended to. If they attack the law, I mean
the act of repeal, and are resolved to avail themselves of the
occasion it furnishes to measure their strength with the
other departments of government, I am of opinion that
this postponement would give new colour to their pretensions, new spirits to their party and a better prospect
of success. It will perhaps not be possible to avoid the collision and the crisis growing out of it. A measure of the
kind referred to invites it. The best way to prevent one
is to take a bold attitude and apparently invite it. The
Court has a right to take its part, and ought not to be deprived of any pre-existing means. I am not apprehensive of
any danger from such a collision, and am inclined to think
the stronger the ground taken by the Court, especially, if
it looks toward anarchy, the better the effect will be with
the public. The people will then have to decide whether
they will support the Court, or in other words embark again
under the auspices of the Federal party, or cling to an
Administration in two of the departments of the government which lessens their burdens and cherishes their liberty.
The enactment of this statute postponing the Court's session did not deflect the Federalists from their determination to have the legality of the Repeal Law presented for an adjudication by the Court, and the "Midnight Judges" themselves petitioned Congress for the passage of a resolution to request the President to cause an information in nature of a quo warranto to be filed by the Attorney-General against Richard Bassett, a petitioner, "for the purpose of deciding judicially on their claims."[1] On this resolution, a heated debate
- ↑ Alexander Hamilton wrote to Charles C. Pinckney, April 25, 1802: “Upon the subject of the Judiciary I have had an opportunity of learning the opinions of the Chief Justice. He considers the late repealing Act as operative in depriv-
