Page images

United States, Mr. TANEY, in 1833, was transferred to the Treasury Department. His celebrated order, removing the deposits, led to the rejection of his nomination as Secretary of the Treasury by the Senate, and, in June, 1834, he resigned. The term of about nine months during which he held this office, was, it is believed, the only time during which he was entirely withdrawn from professional life. In the early part of 1835 General Jackson nominated Mr. TANEY to the Senate as one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, in the room of Judge Duvall, deceased. The Senate did not act on the nomination, and, Chief Justice Marshall having died in the summer of 1835, the President, on the 28th of December of that year, nominated Mr. TANEY as Chief Justice, which nomination was confirmed on the 15th of March, 1836. Mr. Clay, it is said, strenuously opposed the confirmation of the nomination, but frankly admitted to Judge TANEY, years afterward, that he regretted his course, adding, with a cordial shake of the hand, that he regarded him as a worthy successor of Chief Justice Marshall. What higher praise could have been asked for?

Judge TANEY held the Circuit Court in Maryland, during the year 1836, and took his seat on the Bench of the Supreme Court in January, 1837. From that time to the day of his death, the history of the Chief Justice is known to the world. The published reports of the decisions of the high tribunal over which he so ably presided, speak of and for his labors far more emphatically than anything I could say. Did time allow me, I might refer to the great learning and ability displayed in many of the opinions he pronounced, and especially of the luminous character of those which related to constitutional questions. But I must pass this by, and proceed to other topics.

I will not undertake to speak at length of the professional ability and mental characteristics of the departed Judge. That duty will no doubt be more ably and more appropriately performed in another place, and under circumstances which will give the occasion a national character. He was a well read and profound lawyer, strong in his convictions as to great principles, and firmly adhering to them. In the clearness and logical character of his judgments, he was not excelled by any jurist of our country. It was beautifully remarked of him, by Mr. Wirt, that he was "the man of moonlight mind; I mean," he said, "the moonlight of the Arctics, where you have all the light of day without its glare." His deportment on the bench was beyond all praise. The quiet dignity of his manner, and the ease and grace with which he presided over the deliberations of the Court, can never be forgotten by those who witnessed them. And how can I speak of his conduct to the bar? Never was a judge more kind, more considerate, more patient than he. Every one who addressed him, while impressed with the presence in which he stood, still felt that he was speaking. as it were, to a friend--one who would overlook the imperfectness of his argument, and patiently weigh and consider every view presented.

But the Chief Justice was that without which acquirements, learning, all other attainments, are of little moment--a thoroughly incorruptible, fearless and honest judge. Little did those who only saw him presiding in Court, where the kindness and childlike gentleness of his manner were so apparent, know how brave a heart beat under that quiet and calm exterior. He was one of the few --alas! how few there are-who had the moral courage to do what he believed

to be right, and I am firmly convinced, that rather than yield his views on any of the great questions of constitutional law which form the groundwork of our institutions, he would readily have sacrificed his life. But you, sir, (addressing Mr. Justice Nelson) who were associated with him so many years in the discharge of your high official functions, knew him so well, you so thoroughly understood his many excellent qualities both of heart and mind, his great attainments and his elevated character, that I feel that, in your presence, I ought not to say more on this subject.

The daily beauty and simplicity of the private life of the Chief Justice I believe to have been almost without parallel among the great men of our country. In his conversation he was most attractive, winning and instructive, and I never left, after an interview with him, without increased regard for his virtues and character. Of his religious life I cannot venture to speak, except perhaps to say that which is known to us all, that he was one of the most prominent members of the Roman Catholic Church in this country--devoted, in the broad spirit of Christianity, to its institutions and its interests. But he comprehended all classes of men in his sympathies, and showed his faith by a life of duty, integ rity and Christian devotion here, which, we reverently trust, has secured for him an eternal reward in that blessed state to which he has gone. Clarum et venerabile nomen-long may the influence of the ability, the integrity, and the pure and elevated character of the great departed Judge, remain with the members of that august tribunal over which he so long and honorably presided.

May it please the Court, I now move that an appropriate entry of the death of Chief Justice TANEY be made by the clerk on the records of this Court, and that the Court do now adjourn.

Mr. Justice NELSON responded as follows:

The death of Chief Justice TANEY, from his great age, in his eighty-eighth year, and bodily infirmities, was not unexpected. For several years past he has been, physically, so feeble as to excite, constantly, the serious apprehension of his family and friends. But his mind, during all these years, and at all times, has been unimpaired.

The life and public services of this venerable and eminent Judge have been so long and so conspicuously before the country, that it can hardly be necessary to do more than to allude to them. He was one of the most learned and able lawyers of the nation, while engaged in the practice of the law, and well earned and achieved the highest honors of his profession; and, in all the public offices and employments which he has filled--Attorney-General of the United States, Secretary of the Treasury, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the nation-his clear intellect and unpretending habits, both in public and private life. were always distinguished characteristics. There never was a public functionary, in this or any other country, who brought to the investigation of the great questions that came before him, political or judicial, or to the discharge of his high duties, a clearer understanding, or purer heart, or greater patience and devotion in the pursuit of right and justice. Few men possessed a more well 'balanced mind in the discharge of varied duties and responsibilities, and in the application of it to the business affairs of life. In his nature and tempera

ment, there were fewer disturbing elements than ordinarily fall to the lot of humanity. His disposition was kind and generous; and his intercourse and association with his brethren and the bar were most courteous and friendly.

He was always ready and willing to give them the benefit of his counsel and advice. In his death, the country has lost a public servant, a large portion of whose life has been devoted to her service--the Bench and the Bar, their best friend and brightest ornament. Those of us who have been long and intimately associated with him feel most deeply his loss. He was our friend and brother. Our best consolation is in the memory of his virtues and of the good deeds that filled the measure of his life.


[The following charge was delivered to the Grand Jury, on the 20th of June, 1866, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York, by Judge SHIPMAN.]


The 6th section of the Act of April 20th, 1818, (3 U. S. Stat, at Large, 449,) forbidding military expeditions by individuals against countries with which the United States are at peace, commented on.

The duties of neutrality, enforced.


I intimated to you yesterday, at the close of my brief remarks on the general business of the term that would come before you, that I would this morning submit a few observations to you on a single subject. The District Attorney has informed me that he intends to lay before you charges against certain individuals alleged to have been engaged in a military expedition against the Provinces of Canada, in violation of the neutrality laws of the United States. The particular section of the statute upon which he intends to found the indictments is as follows: "If any person shall, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, begin or set on foot, or provide or prepare the means for, any military expedition or enterprise, to be carried on from thence against the territory or dominions of any foreign Prince or State, or any colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace, every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined not exceeding $3,000, and imprisoned not more than three years." This is the 6th section of an Act of Congress approved April 20th, 1818, (3 U. S. Stat. at Large, 449,) and forms part of a series of provisions enacted for the very purpose of preventing hostile incursions from our own territory into that of Governments with which we are at peace, as well as the fitting out or arming vessels to operate by sea. This Act is founded upon the highest considerations of justice, peace, and safety, and every person within the limits of the United States is bound to yield obedience

to its provisions. It applies not only to citizens of the United States, but to all persons within their territory or jurisdiction, whether permanently or temporarily residing therein. It was the duty of the National Legislature to enact this law, and it is the duty of every magistrate and every juror to whom any jurisdiction over the subject matter is committed, to give his aid, under proper legal rules, to the enforcement of its obligations. The duty of a Government to restrain its own citizens, and all others within its territorial limits, from engag ing in military expeditions against powers with which such Government is at peace, arises out of the law of nations, and its faithful observance is of the very highest importance to the peace of the world, the stability and good order of society, and the welfare of mankind. Were individuals, however numerous or respectable, by whatever motives actnated, permitted, upon their own motion, to organize warlike enterprises in their native or adopted country, and engage in incursions into the territory of neighboring friendly nations, governments would no longer have control of the momentous questions of war and peace. A comparatively small portion of the population of a country could effectually embroil it with other nations, and all the calamities of war be precipitated upon a people, at any moment, however unfavorable, without the sanction of their constituted authorities, and against the will of a majority of the people themselves. A country which should permit such a flagrant violation of its national obligations, would soon become a theatre from which hostile expeditions would issue, both by sea and by land. It would inevitably be brought into collision with every respectable Government on the globe, whose disaffected citizens might seek its shore, in order to securely prepare and send forth the means of retaliation, revolution, or conquest. The honor and dignity of the United States, the reciprocal duties which rest upon it as one of the nations of the earth, and the welfare of its citizens, both native and adopted, all demand that this Act of Congress shall be obeyed, or, if violated, that the offender shall be promptly punished. If, therefore, evidence shall be presented to you proving that parties have, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, begun or set on foot, or provided or prepared the means for, a military expedition against You deal Canada, it will be your duty to present them to the Court for trial. with the fact. You will be governed by the evidence.

I hardly need remind you that many considerations which find a place in appeals to popular feeling are hardly proper for your deliberations. We are at peace with Great Britain. Whether, in the judgment of individuals, the people of England or of Canada have, during our late civil war, said or done things distasteful to us or not, is a matter entirely foreign from our duty to enforce our own laws. I have said that we are at peace with Great Britain. That is a question of law for the Court to determine, and one over which the Grand Jury have no just control. The only question, therefore, for you to determine is, whether or not the accused parties have, in any invasion, or attempted invasion, of Canada, broken the law which I have read to you; and, in determining that question, you should consider the acts done on both sides of the boundary line, as giving character to those acts which were done exclusively on our own soil. You will say whether, if an expedition started from this country, and actually made war in a neighboring province, the acts done here were not a beginning

or setting on foot, within the United States, of a military expedition or enterprise, having for its object that which it actually accomplished.

Neither can the Grand Jury properly consider any supposed grievances which the offending party may have suffered at the hands of the Government against which this military crusade was leveled. With the merits of that question we have nothing to do here. Our laws must be enforced. If men of one nationality, who have sought homes among us, can violate our neutral obligations, men of every other nationality can do likewise; and thus the foreign relations of a great country may be taken out of the hands of its Government, and the issues of war and peace be committed to as many irresponsible parties as we have classes of adopted citizens or resident foreigners among us. I need but allude to such an absurd idea, to satisfy you that considerations affected by sympathy with one or another class of adopted citizens, can have no proper place in the inquiry upon which you are about to enter. We live under a Government of laws, and, when we cease to administer those laws, and to submit to their requirements, we may prove ourselves unworthy of that safety and dignity which they are designed to secure. You will, gentlemen, retire to your room, and, if you find that the offences to which I have alluded have been committed, you will present the offenders for trial.


[The following charge was delivered to the Grand Jury, on the 12th of November, 1867, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut, by Judge SHIPMAN.]


Frauds by officers of Nationa! Banks, commented on.


You are assembled, in pursuance of law, to enquire into the truth of any charges that may be submitted to you against individuals, for crimes committed in this District, or on the high seas, in violation of Acts of Congress. You are aware that the Courts of the United States have no common law jurisdiction. They can punish no offences except such as are prohibited by some specific Acts of the National Legislature. These are comparatively few in number. The great body of offences against society pertain exclusively to the jurisdiction of the State Courts, and can be punished by them alone. You are also aware, that no man can be put on trial before a Federal Court, until he has first been indicted by a grand jury. The law is different in the tribunals of our own State. There, in all cases when the punishment is neither death nor imprisonment for life, the State Attorney can file his information and bring the offenders

« PreviousContinue »