loan office certificates, which, upon the death of Mr. Rittenhouse, came into the possession of his representatives Mrs. Sergeant and Mrs. Waters, and were libelled for execution by Olmstead under the decree of the higher court. This libel, too, was determined in his favor, in January, 1803. It was shortly after this that the legislature of Pennsylvania took part in the controversy; but it was not until the 27th of February, 1809, that Governor Snyder, watching the course of judicial action, deemed it his duty to maintain the rights and honor of the State by executing the enactment and calling out a portion of the militia to protect Mrs. Sergeant and Mrs. Waters from any process in the hands of any officer under the direction of any court of the United States.

Amid very great local excitement, the marshal, with his writ of attachment in his hand, and anxious peacefully to execute it according to the principle of forbearance advised by Mr. Dallas, was nevertheless forcibly obstructed and repelled by a numerous military guard, which surrounded the residence of the ladies, under the command of General Michael Bright. With some firmness, much composure, and great address, he penetrated to the interior of the house and effected the arrest.

An indictment, founded on a penal act of Congress, against Michael Bright and eight others being presented and returned by the grand jury, came up for trial in the circuit court of the United States on the 28th April, 1809, before judges Bushrod Washington and Richard Peters.

Occasional collisions, in federative systems of government, between the local and the general authorities are shown by all history to be unavoidable. The lines which divide the spheres of action are on the borders so narrow, and, under the fading influences of time become so indistinct, that they are constantly in danger of being practically overstepped. Such, too, is the infirmity of human intellect and virtue, that an aggression, once committed, never lacks defenders or apologists; and an error which quiet good sense might at the outset have rectified, rapidly swells into a noisy and impracticable shibboleth of party. The stand taken by the legislature of Pennsylvania against the rights of Olmstead, and the course of judicial appeal, was untenable; and yet it was perseveringly bolstered by legal provisions and executive conduct for many years,

until it finally took an alarming and critical aspect. In opening the evidence, Mr Dallas said:

"When the grand jury found this indictment a true bill, what was the spectacle exhibited in the streets of Philadelphia, what were the cousequences that menaced the peace of the city, and what were the feelings that agitated every patriotic heart? An armed force, raised under the orders of the governor of the State to resist and defeat the judicial authority of the Union; a marshal officially compelled to summon a part of his fellow-citizens to oppose with force another part; and the authority of the United States in action, leading to the result of arraying the whole power of the confederation, if necessary, in arms, against the whole power of one of its members! Not only the inhabitants of Philadelphia, but every citizen of every State,-nay, every friend of republican liberty throughout the world must be appalled in contemplating so momentous a crisis. It was not simply a question of property, a question of jurisdiction, or a question of State sovereignty that was involved; but the great questions which are so interesting to mankind seemed to be at issue, whether a free government, established and administered by the people themselves, can possess sufficient energy for its own preservation; whether the republican representative system is constructed of materials fitted for stability and duration, and whether liberty, driven from the regions of Europe, Asia, and Africa, shall find a dwelling-place on the face of the terraqueous globe."

The solemnity of this exordium was neither exaggerated nor misplaced. Let us remember that, though the Constitution of the Union had been in operation but twenty years, the tendency to disregard its provisions was already thrice and seriously manifested in Pennsylvania. In 1794, an insurrection to resist an excise on whiskey stills; in 1799, another to resist a mistakenly-called window-tax; and now a threatened rebellion to secure for State pretensions a supremacy expressly conferred upon the national jurisdiction. This last was far the most formidable and dangerous; it rested vaguely upon the popular and undis criminating doctrine of State rights; the sovereignty of the Commonwealth seemed enlisted; the executive and both branches of the legislature gave it countenance; it preceded by a quarter of a century the discontents of South Carolina, and yet bore all the worst features of nullification.

The eloquent and patriotic counsel who, as we are aware, had profoundly explored the origin and structure of the American Union, and reverenced it as the wisest of human works, could not resist this suitable opportunity to press its excellence upon a public tribunal. During the subsequent fifty years we have rejoiced in many able commentaries and vindications; but the lucid, just, comprehensive and powerful exposition given by Mr. Dallas, in advance of all these, merits special preservation. Nothing can do equal justice to the purity of his love of country, the soundness of his judgment, and the clear richness of his elocution; and nothing at the present epoch of strife is worthier of analysis and study. may venture on extracts of unusual length.

We

"In the management of the prosecution I shall not step aside to arraign the policy of the State of Pennsylvania, nor to derogate from the character of her magistrates. To assert the authority and jurisdiction of the United States it may be necessary to question the constitutionality of the course that has been pursued in Pennsylvania and to demonstrate the errors that have been committed by her public functionaries; but it can never be necessary to ascribe an improper motive to human actions when the fallibility of human judgment will fairly account for whatever is or seems to be wrong; and it is in the capacity of a private citizen, not in the office of a public prosecutor, that I permit myself to deplore and to deprecate the policy of the State government. Even under the opinion that Pennsylvania has erred, I shall speak of her with reverence and attachment. My remarks will be confined to the evidence, the law, and the principles of the case. And I confidently hope that the event of the discussion, so far from disgracing Pennsylvania, will be the instrument of her vindication, restoring her to the high and merited rank which she has hitherto enjoyed among the sister States.

"The offence charged against the defendants is of a nature as serious as any that can be charged against the citizens of a free government. I do not except treason as it operates against the government, nor murder as it respects an individual. In its first aspect, indeed, it differs from those crimes; but it gradually assumes the front of treason, and murder naturally follows in its train. Even, however, this tendency to accumulate guilt is not the great evil and danger of the offence to which I now advert. The open, bold, and ostensible movements of treason-for instance, the levying of war to subvert the government, or to sever the territory of the Union by the range of the Alleghany or the western waters-will always present an object which the vigi

lance of our administration may readily detect and the power of the nation will certainly defeat; but if a resistance to the regular operation of the laws, administered through the medium of the courts of justice, shall pass with impunity till the offence becomes habitual among the people, the disease will not be perceived till it is incurable; the foundations of the government will be undermined before the approach of danger is suspected, and the fabric of civil liberty which the valor and wisdom of your patriots have raised will, in a sudden and tremendous fall, overwhelm you with destruction and dismay. Remember, then, I pray you, that the existence of the government depends essentially upon the exist ence of all its departments, and that treason in arms against the executive and legislative departments cannot be more certainly fatal to the vital principle of the government than habitual opposition or popular contempt manifested toward the judicial authority. This is, in some degree, the case in every form of government, but in monarchical governments the ready assistance of military force may always be obtained to execute the judgments of the law. It is under a free government, constituted by the people, and forever dependent upon their good will, under which the civil authority is declared to be supreme, while military force is designated as an object for jealousy and control, that the dominion of the laws must in a peculiar manner be held sacred, for otherwise (as it has been already said) the government itself must cease to exist. When the decrees of justice can no longer be enforced by the marshal and the writ, you must resort to the soldier and the bayonet; and, whatever you may choose to call your government, depend upon it you will no longer continue to be a free people. A resort to arms in obstructing the operation of the laws must inevitably lead to a resort to arms in maintaining them. Nor can it make any difference in principle whether the execution of an act of Congress or the judgment of a court be resisted, whether the resistance is attempted by an individual or by a multitude, in the rage of wanton violence or under color of spurious authority.

"But opinions have been scattered abroad in pamphlets, in newspapers, and in declamatory harangues, which are, I confess, well calculated to pervert the public mind, and to excite the public feelings on the peculiar subject of the present prosecution. It is weakly, if not wickedly, said that an opposition to the judicial process of our courts is not an opposition to the laws; and that persons who act under the authority of the State in making such opposition are guilty of no offence. Against a doctrine so radically vicious it is a duty most solemnly to protest: nor can I safely approach the immediate ground of the prosecution without first endeavoring to rescue your judgment from its baneful influence. I claim, therefore, the attention of the jury for a

short, but, I hope, a satisfactory development of the principles of our social compact in its federal as well as in its State characteristics.

"There is no truth more certain, none to which I more sincerely subscribe, than that the sovereignty of the nation resides essentially and everlastingly in the people. From this sovereignty emanates the powers of government, whether they are vested in the federal or in the State system; and whether in either system, they are assigned to the legislative, the executive, or the judicial department. The institution of government is thus an exercise of the sovereignty of the people, in their own way, and for their own good. The people acting as the creator, assign to the subject of their creation, the form, attributes, and operation necessary to its use. In dividing the powers of government into federal and State, the sovereignty of the people is displayed, not surrendered: and in dividing the government into departments, the separation is made for the preservation of each in its legitimate sphere, and not with a view to render any one department superior to the others. Hence, while the sovereignty resides inherently and inalienably in the people, it is a perversion of language to denominate the State, as a body politic or government, sovereign and independent. If, indeed, the word 'State' is used as a collective for the people of the State (in which sense, and in a sense descriptive of territorial jurisdiction, it is sometimes used), there is no objection to the phrase: but a State, meaning the government of the State, is never itself sovereign, though it may discharge those functions of sovereignty which the people have assigned to it; nor can it ever be independent while the people possess the right and power to change, modify, or abolish it. The federal and State governments, in this point of view, are alike possessed of sovereign powers; but the State government can no more be denominated sovereign and independent in relation to the powers vested in the federal government than the latter can be so denominated in relation to the powers vested in the former, or reserved to the people. truth is (a political truth that ought never to be overlooked in the collisions that may arise between State and federal authorities) that the constitutions of the Union and of the State must be regarded and construed as instruments formed and executed by the same party, the sovereign people, delegating powers to different agents, but upon the same trusts and for the same uses. The instruments manifest the powers of the constituent and prescribe the duties of the representative. And thus you hear the mighty voice of the people announcing in a solemn and formal preface to the work that THEY (not that the sovereign and independent States) ordain and establish the federal, as well as the State, constitution for their government. The people of Penn

The.