Chase, in a tone of lofty indignation, “ I will be the posse comitatus, and I will take him to jail.”

A member of the bar now begged leave to interpose, and requested the judge to waive the commitment. “No, God forbid,” replied the judge, “I will do my duty, whatever be the consequences to myself or my family.” He now directed the parties to meet him the next day, and to give him the required security. He was told that the next day would be the sabbath “No better day,” said Judge Chase, “can be named, on which to execute the laws of the country. I will meet you here, and from this seat of justice I will go to the house of God.”

The parties in question, however, neglected to give the required security on the sabbath, on account of which neglect, the judge despatched an express to the governor and council, calling upon them for assistance in the execution of the laws. On Monday the required security was given; but when the grand jury met, instead of finding a bill against the accused, they delivered a presentment against Judge Chase himself, in which they reflected with severity upon his censure of the sheriff, and charged him with having violated the bill of rights, by holding at the same time two incompatible offices, viz. the office of chief justice of the criminal court, and that of the general court of the state. To this presentment Judge Chase replied with becoming moderation, and yet with firmness. In conclusion, he informed the jury that they had touched upon topics beyond their province; he advised them to confine themselves to the line of their duty, assuring them that whatever opinions they might form, or whatever resentments they might indulge, he should ever respect them as the grand inquest of the state of Maryland.

In the year 1796, he was appointed by Washington an associate judge of the supreme court of the United States, a station which he continued to occupy for fifteen years, and in which he generally appeared with great dignity and ability. It was the ill fortune of Judge Chase, however, to have his

lays on the bench embittered by an impeachment by

of representatives, on which he was tried before the

senate of the United States, where he narrowly escaped condemnation. This impeachment was made in 1804, and was recommended by a committee of inquiry, raised, it is said, on the motion of John Randolph, of Virginia, to which he was incited through political animosity. The articles of inpeachment originally reported were six in number, to which two others were afterwards added. On these articles Judge Chase was put upon his trial, which began on the second of January, and was finally ended on the fifth of March, 1805.

The articles of impeachment were founded on certain conduct of the judge, on different occasions, at Philadelphia, Richmond, and other places, in which he was said to have transcended his judicial powers. The minute history of this affair, our limits forbid us to detail. It is sufficient to say, that much exertion was made by his political opponents to produce a conviction, but without effect. On five of the charges a majority of the senate acquitted him. On the others, a majority was against him ; but as a vote of two thirds is necessary to conviction, he was acquitted of the whole.

This was a severe trial to a man of the independent spirit of Judge Chase. Its disagreeableness was not a little increased by a severe attack of the gout, during the progress of the impeachment. After his acquittal, he continued to exercise his judicial functions, unmolested by his enemies, and with his usual ability.

In the year 1811, his health began to fail him, and though his disease was slow in its progress, he well understood, that it was of a nature to bring him to the grave. His death occurred on the nineteenth of June. In his dying hour, he appeared calm and resigned. He spoke of his domestic affairs with great propriety, and to his weeping family recommended composure and fortitude. He was a firm believer in Christianity, and but a short time before his death, having partaken of the sacrament, he declared himself to be in peace with all mankind. In his will, he directed that no mourning should be worn for him, and requested that only his name, with the dates of his birth and death, should be inscribed on his tomb.

From the foregoing sketch, it is easy to perceive that Judge Chase was no ordinary man. He possessed an intellect of great power, and a courage which was at all times undaunted. It was his unhappiness to have feelings which were too irascible and vehement for his personal comfort, and which betrayed him at times, into a course of conduct, that sober judgment would have pronounced at least impolitic. Yet few men were more sincere, or more firmly patriotic. dently loved his friends, and by them, was ardently loved in turn. He loved his country. In the days of her deepest depression, he stood firm' to her interests, and will occupy a distinguished place among those who have “graced the rolls of fame.”

He ar

66

WILLIAM PACA.

William PACA was born on the 31st of October, 1740. He was the second son of John Paca, a gentleman of large estate, who resided in the county of Harford, in the state of Maryland. His father, sensible of the importance of a good education, placed his son, at a proper age, in the college at. Philadelphia, at that time under the care of the learned and eloquent Dr. William Smith. On commencing bachelor of arts, in 1759, he entered the office of Stephen Bradley, a distinguished lawyer of Annapolis, for the purpose of pursuing the profession of law.

Mr. Paca was a diligent student, and early gave promise of eminence in his profession. He was licensed to practice in 1761, and was admitted to the bar at the provincial court in 1764. He established himself at Annapolis, where he had for his competitors, John Price, and Samuel Chase, with the latter of whom he became intimately acquainted, and with whom he acted an important part during the revolutionary struggle.

The political career of Mr. Paca commenced in 1771, at

which time he was appointed to represent the county in the popular branch of the legislature. At this time, and for several years after, much contention existed between the government of Maryland, which was proprietary, and the people. The government consisted of three branches : a house of burgesses, the members of which were selected by the people. The second branch was called the upper house, the members of which were elected and removed, at the pleasure of the proprietor. The governor formed the third branch, without whose assent no act of assembly was valid. And in addition to this, the proprietor himself, who generally resided in England, claimed the privilege of dissenting from such laws as he pleased, although they had received the sanction of the above branches of the legislature. Hence, there was often no small collision between the lower house, or those who represented the people, and the upper house and governor, who were considered as under the influence of the proprietor.

In this provincial assembly, Mr. Paca represented the peo ple, whose interests he strongly felt, and faithfully guarded. The interests of the proprietor and of the people were often thought to be at variance. An avaricious and oppressive spirit marked the proceedings of the proprietor and his partisans. It was important, therefore, for the people, to have men to represent them in the house of burgesses, who understood their rights, and were sufficiently bold to assert and maintain them. Such a man was Mr. Paca. He was learned as to a knowledge of law, and of the principles of the proprietary government; and at all times, when necessary, sufficiently courageous to resist the aggressions of avarice, and the usurpations of tyranny.

The following anecdote will illustrate the bold and independent spirit of Mr. Paca. In 1771, an act expired in Maryland, the object of which was to regulate the staple of tobacco, and the fees of certain officers. This act the house of burgesses refused to continue, without a reduction of the officers' fees. As neither branch of the assembly would recede from the ground it had taken, the fee bill fell. In this

vernor.

a

state of things, the governor issued his proclamation directing the officers to proceed according to the old law.

The commotion excited throughout the province was great, and at some places, particularly at Annapolis, even tumultuous. At this latter place, a multitude of citizens collected to express their abhorrence of the conduct of the go

At the head of this multitude were Mr. Paca and Mr. Chase. A procession was formed, and with these two gentlemen for leaders, they proceeded to a gallows which had been previously erected, upon which they hung the governor's proclamation, in due form, with a halter. At length it was taken down, inclosed in a coffin prepared for the purpose, and consigned to a grave dug beneath the gal. lows. During the whole ceremony, minute guns were fired from a schooner owned by Mr. Paca, which was stationer at no great distance. In conclusion, the citizens marched back to the city, where they devoted the remainder of the day to festivity.

The controversy to which we have now alluded had long existed, and continued to exist, quite down to the era of the revolutionary struggle. When that struggle commenced, about the year 1774, there were men, therefore, in Maryland, who were well prepared to enter into it, with energy and decision. They had been trained in the school of controversy. They had studied every chapter relating to American rights; and possessing a boldness and a courage commensurate with their knowledge, they were prepared to act a decided part.

Of the illustrious congress of 1774, Mr. Paca was a member, in conjunction with Samuel Chase, and several others. They were instructed by the Maryland convention, from which they received their appointment: “To effect one general plan of conduct, operating on the commercial connexion of the colonies with the mother country, for the relief of Boston, and the preservation of American liberty." As a member of this congress, Mr. Paca so well pleased his constituents, that he was re-appointed to the same station, until the year 1778, at the close of which he retired.

Mr. Paca was an open advocate for a declaration of inde

a

а