We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
The intent of the framers of the judiciary act of 1801 has been to the present day a matter of some doubt. On the one hand it has been shown that alterations in the judiciary system of the United States had long been agitated before the failure of the Federalist party in the elections of 1800. Soon after the establishment of federal courts in 1789 relief had been sought by the justices of the supreme court from the arduous duties necessitated in riding the circuits. In 1799 a bill designed to establish a system of circuit courts was reported upon which action was postponed. But this later became the basis for the act of 1801. It has, therefore, been contended that, quite apart from the political advantage given the Federalists by the passage of the act of 1801, such changes in the judiciary system were warranted by necessity.
At the same time it is equally clear that the amount of business before the courts of the United States, although it had been excessive, had begun to decline. No further prosecutions were to be expected under the alien and sedition acts, and a decrease in the number of suits before the federal courts involving other questions was observed even before the accession of Jefferson to the presidency.
1 See Farrand, : American Historical Review, v, p. 682.Google Scholar
2 American State Papers, Misc. i, pp. 51–52.
3 Annals 7th Cong., 1st Sees., p. 672.
4 American State Papers, Misc. i, p. 319 et seq.
5 In the debates on the repeal of the act of 1801 the Republicans claimed the expense of the new courts to be $137,000. Professor Farrand estimates the expense at not more than $50,000. American Historical Review, v. p. 685.
6 Annals 7th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 26.
7 Art. I, Sect. 4.
8 Executive Journal (1789–1805), pp. 381, 383.
9 Ibid., pp. 384–385.
10 Breckinridge MSS., Feb. (19), 1801. The collection of the Breckinridge family papers in the Library of Congress has not yet been opened to the public. I am indebted to Miss Sophonisba Breckinridge for permission to make use of these unusually valuable manuscripts.
11 Jefferson MSS., March 16, 1801.
12 Letter to Barry, December 21, 1791.
13 Jefferson MSS., November 26, 1798.
14 Jefferson MSS., March 23, 1801.
15 Jefferson MSS., June 1, 1801.
16 Jefferson MSS., August 26, 1801.
17 The Palladium (Frankfort, Ky.), November 27, 1801.
18 Breckinridge MSS., November 21, 1801.
19 Two district courts were abolished by the act of 1801 but the judges were appointed to the new circuit courts.
20 Breckinridge MSS., December 22, 1801.
21 Annals 7th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 26–29.
22 On June 22, 1789 Richard Henry Lee proposed to amend the Judiciary Act to provide “that the jurisdiction of the federal courts should be confined to cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.” Maclay, : Journal, p. 74.Google Scholar
23 Breckinridge MSS., February 22, 1802.
24 Story on the Constitution, ii, p. 401.
25 Annals 7th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 30.
26 Hamilton MSS., April 12, 1802.
27 Annals 7th Cong., 2nd Sess., pp. 427–441.
28 Hamilton MSS., April 25, 1802.
