by a gentleman of the name of Jarvis with a book, or essay, or
periodical, called the Republican, and he was writing in acknowledgment
of the present, and noting some of its contents. After expressing the
hope that the work will produce a favorable effect upon the minds of the
young, he proceeds to say:

"That it will have this tendency may be expected, and for that reason I
feel an urgency to note what I deem an error in it, the more requiring
notice as your opinion is strengthened by that of many others. You seem,
in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of
all constitutional questions,--a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one
which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are
as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same
passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their
maxim is, 'Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem'; and their power is
the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible,
as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution
has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands
confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would
become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and
co-sovereign with themselves."

Thus we see the power claimed for the Supreme Court by Judge Douglas, Mr.
Jefferson holds, would reduce us to the despotism of an oligarchy.

Now, I have said no more than this,--in fact, never quite so much as
this; at least I am sustained by Mr. Jefferson.

Let us go a little further. You remember we once had a National Bank.
Some one owed the bank a debt; he was sued, and sought to avoid payment