RC (OCHP:William Cranch Papers); addressed: “William Cranch Esqr: / City of Washington”; internal address: “William Cranch Esqr:”; endorsed: “T. B. Adams 30 Jany. 1802.”

Not found.

Thomas Jefferson and other Democratic-Republicans were bent on repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801 from the time JA signed the legislation into law on 13 February. The effort began in earnest on 6 Jan. 1802 when Kentucky senator John Breckinridge introduced a motion to rescind the law, contending that the courts it created were “a wanton waste of the public treasure.” Breckinridge’s argument went to the core of the ideological differences between the two parties. In replacing the circuit riding of Supreme Court justices with the new U.S. Circuit Courts, Breckinridge argued that Federalists improperly expanded federal judicial oversight by absorbing cases that “could, with propriety, be left with the State courts.” Federalists responded that the added expense of the new courts was justified because the circuit duties put undue demands on Supreme Court justices. “It was a fact that three-fourths of the time of the judges had been taken up in travelling,” Jonathan Mason of Massachusetts claimed, while Simeon Olcott of New Hampshire believed the new system should be tested 166 before being considered for repeal. The Democratic-Republican majority in both chambers prevailed, framing the law as a partisan act of an outgoing Federalist president that should be discarded. “I admire the private character of Mr. Adams,” declared James Jackson of Georgia, “but I do believe the succession of his political acts tended ultimately to accumulate in, and attach all powers to, a particular person or favorite family.” On 19 Jan., a committee was appointed to draft a bill of repeal, which they did three days later. The Senate passed the bill by a single vote on 3 Feb., and the House followed on 3 March. Jefferson signed the repeal into law on 8 March.

Thirteen U.S. Circuit Court judges nominated by JA were summarily removed from the bench, the courts over which they presided were dissolved, and their cases were returned to the U.S. Supreme Court. Democratic-Republicans in Congress attempted to make the reversion of duties upon the justices more palatable by passing the Judiciary Act of 1802 on 29 April. In addition to recodifying the old system, the act reduced the demands on the justices by excluding Maine, Kentucky, and Tennessee from the circuit system and eliminating the court’s summer session. The law also further reduced the reach of the federal judiciary by stipulating that the president rather than federal district judges would appoint bankruptcy commissioners in each state. U.S. Supreme Court chief justice John Marshall and justice Samuel Chase both hinted that they might consider ruling that the removal of sitting judges was unconstitutional and overturn the repeal, but the others on the court were not inclined to do so and no action was taken (vol. 14:512–513; Jed Glickstein, “After Midnight: The Circuit Judges and the Repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801,” Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, 24:546–554 [Jan. 2012]; Annals of Congress , 7th Cong., 1st sess., p. 23, 25–41, 46–74, 75–145, 146, 147, 148–150, 154–184, 982; Biog. Dir. Cong. ; Jefferson, Papers , 36:619, 37:2, 210; U.S. Statutes at Large , 2:132, 156–167).

For Cranch’s essays as “A Friend to the Constitution” opposing attempts to restructure the judiciary, see AA to TBA, 27 Dec. 1801, and note 2, above.

On 8 and 14 Jan. 1802 Gouverneur Morris addressed the Senate, opposing the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801 by arguing that repeal was unnecessary and unconstitutional. Morris wrote in his diary that not only was his first speech well-attended but it was also “much approv’d of by those who think with me.” The speeches were printed in the Philadelphia Gazette, 18, 28 Jan. 1802 ( Annals of Congress , 7th Cong., 1st sess., p. 36–41, 76–88, 89–92; Morris, Diaries , 2:207, 209). For AA’s comments on the second speech, see AA to TBA, 7 Feb., below.

On 1 Jan. 1801 the U.S. national debt stood at just over $83 million. Treasury secretary Albert Gallatin’s goal was to eliminate it within fifteen and one-half years by reducing federal expenditures, implementing control over appropriations, and limiting the growth of the army and navy. By 1 Jan. 1802 the debt had been reduced to $80.7 million and the following year it stood at $77 million (Thomas K. McCraw, The Founders and Finance: How Hamilton, Gallatin, and Other Immigrants Forged a New Economy, Cambridge, 2012, p. 231, 233; Amer. State Papers, Finance , 1:701–705; Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of the Finances, Washington, D.C., 1907, p. 73).

On 2 Feb. James Ross of Pennsylvania introduced in the Senate a memorial signed by nearly forty Philadelphia lawyers opposing the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801 owing to the “public inconvenience” that would arise if the newly established circuit court system was abolished ( Annals of Congress , 7th Cong., 1st sess., p. 152–153; Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser, 6 Feb. 1802).

TBA was referring to northern resentment over the 1787 “three-fifths compromise” in Art. 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which called for three of every five enslaved people to be counted in the apportionment of federal legislators and electors. The term used by TBA was employed often by Federalist newspapers in attributing Jefferson’s success and JA’s defeat to the clause, and it resurfaced in the press in late 1801 as Democratic-Republicans contemplated the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801, a move Federalists likewise blamed on the three-fifths clause giving the opposition undue representation in Congress. TBA proved prescient, as New England and other northern congressmen threatened in March 1802 to propose a revision to the three-fifths clause if Democratic-Republicans carried through with repealing the judiciary act (vol. 11:269–270; Philadelphia Gazette, 17 Sept. 1800; Boston Columbian Centinel, 7 Jan. 1801; Baltimore Federal Gazette, 17 Feb.; Concord 167 Courier of New Hampshire, 17 Dec.; Baltimore Republican, 2 Jan. 1802; Albert F. Simpson, “The Political Significance of Slave Representation, 1787–1821,” Journal of Southern History, 7:321–323 [Aug. 1941]).

TBA had also written to Cranch on 1 Dec. 1801 to introduce Philadelphia lawyers Richard Peters Jr. and John B. Wallace (OCHP:William Cranch Papers; Philadelphia Directory , 1801, p. 35, 93, Shaw-Shoemaker, No. 1347).