Moylan, all of Pennsylvania; James Monroe of
Virginia; Samuel Johnston of North Carolina, and
Luther Martin of Maryland.^
At the August Term in 1791, Samuel Bayard was appointed Clerk in place of Tucker, and five counsel- ors were qualified.^ On the second day of the Term, the case of West v. Barnes, 2 Dallas, 401, was called for argument ; but "" David L. Barnes of Massachusetts, one of the defendants in error and counselor of the Court (just admitted) rose and stated to the Court that the proceedings in the above cause could not be properly before the Court*', the writ of error having issued from the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court and not from the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court.' The Court dismissed the case on this ground. Had the case been argued, it is probable that at that very early date the Court would have been called upon to consider the extent of its powers, relative to the constitutionality of State statutes ; for the legal tender paper money law of Rhode Island was involved in the case — the same law which the Judges of that State had held invalid in Trevett v. Weeden in 1787.*
Before the next Term, it became necessary for the President to fill a second vacancy ; for John Rutledge of South Carolina, who had never attended a session of the Court and had only served on Circuit, now
^ Twenty-two oounaelon and one attorney were qualified from Pennsylvania; one counselor from Maryland; one counselor and one attorney from Virginia; one counselor from North Carolina.
' David Leonard Barnes of Massachusetts; and Charles Swift, Thomas Smith, Jacob R. Howell, John D. Coze of Pennsylvania. Freeman'M Journal, Aug. 3, 1791, said that the Court adjourned after "several motions respecting suits de- pending on the Court were made."
- See accounts of this case in the contemporary newspapers, Dvnlap*M American Daily AdoertUer, Aug. 18, 1791 ; Columbian CenHnd, Aug. 18, 1791; Massachusetts Spy, Aug. 25, 1791, which are fuller than the account given in Dalloi Reports.
^ See case of David L, Barnes el al. v. William West et al,, in original fites of the Circuit Court in the United States District Court at Providence, R. L
