diate support, and placed as a refuge and protection in times of political heat, beyond the necessity of bending to the changes of those times, in order to gather favor, or avert calamity? Whether they should not be placed beyond even the temptation of accommodating the law to present purposes; and, by gratifying ambition or interest, to break down the rules, that guard the security of property and the safety of rights? Whether, indeed, their compensation ought not to be such, as to command the first talents in the community, and insure to those, who are learned and honest, as well as those, who are great and rich, the participation of those juridical honors, to which the lucubrations of twenty laborious years are scarcely adequate? The Committee beg leave to submit, as their opinion, that these inquiries must lead to a conclusion, that independence in compensation, as well as in tenure of office, is essential to the permanent respectability of the judicial department.

The Committee further report, that, since the year 1790, the business of the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court has increased at least four fold. They are obliged to travel into many counties twice a year, where formerly they travelled but once; and in some counties terms of the said Court are now held, where formerly there was none. The great extension of population and agriculture, the variety and intricacy of a new and continually increasing commerce, and the almost endless other subjects of litigation, consequent on a flourishing domestic intercourse, have swelled, and are annually swelling, the already crowded dockets of every judicial court. For six months every year the judges of the Supreme Judicial Court are travelling the circuits of the Commonwealth, and their expenses on this account are great. The other six months are absorbed in pursuits, not less fatiguing to themselves, nor less important to the people. In the vacations, they are necessarily engaged in forming and digesting opinions on special verdicts, reserved cases, cases on demurrer, and other questions of law, referred solely to the Court for decision, which are too intricate for judgment on the circuits, and require deep and minute investigation in the closet. Their whole time, therefore, both for their own reputation and for the despatch of justice, must be devoted to the public. Domestic concerns, and, much more, the active pursuit of property, are, in a great degree, inconsistent with their duties; and, as they are thus shut out from the acquisition of wealth, it would seem to be the proper office of the legislature to become the guardians of their families, and the supporters of their indepen

dence. Considering, therefore, the salaries established in 1790, either in regard to the increased duties of the judges, the greater number of circuits, and the vast addition of business in the courts, or the great depreciation of money, and consequent higher price of the necessaries of life, the Committee cannot but think, that double those salaries at the present time would hardly be a compensation equivalent to those permanently established in 1790; which, from grants almost immediately succeeding, seem to have been then deemed insufficient by the legislature.

With these views, the Committee respectfully report, that in their opinion it is necessary to make an addition to the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Judicial Court of this Commonwealth; and they report a bill accordingly.*

By order of the Committee.

JOSEPH STORY, Chairman.

* The Bill passed into a Law; and the salaries were again increased by another act, passed in 1809.

MEMORIAL

OF THE INHABITANTS OF SALEM, MASS., ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAN., 1806, RELATIVE TO THE INFRINGEMENTS OF THE NEUTRAL TRADE OF THE UNITED STATES.

That

THE Memorial of the Inhabitants &c., humbly showeth. on ordinary occasions they have deemed it unnecessary to apply for redress of grievances to the Government of their country, confiding in the rectitude and wisdom of its councils; and, though their confidence in this respect is undiminished, yet, as questions of national moment are now agitated, and aggressions committed on our commerce in a manner unprecedented, they deem it their duty to approach the constituted authorities, and express their sentiments with fidelity and deliberation.

It has been a source of the purest satisfaction to your Memorialists, that, while foreign nations have been engaged in wars, which in their nature and consequences have transcended the limits of human foresight, the United States have, under the benign care of Providence, been preserved in the enjoyment of peace and liberty. They have beheld with pleasure our commerce, at first feeble and confined, gradually expanding with awakened enterprise, until it has reached the farthest shores, and embraced the most inhospitable climes. This commerce, prosecuted with increasing vigor, and fostered by new aids, has continually brought to our ports the wealth of all nations, and, by opening a liberal intercourse, added fresh zeal to foreign industry and domestic labor.

Your Memorialists, considering war an evil, which cannot be confined in its consequences to belligerents, even when prosecuted with good faith and amicable intentions towards neutrals, and believing it the sound policy of the United States to avoid every entanglement in it, as injurious to internal improvement and external interests, have witnessed with unhesitating approbation the disposition

to neutrality patronized by the General Government, at times when national wrongs have been pressed upon us with peculiar aggravations, and seemed to point to a summary redress. Firmness and moderation have happily secured all the advantages of successful war; and the sober appeal of reason has carried conviction to foreign nations. From considerations of a similar nature, your Memorialists have submitted to the injuries of belligerents during the late European war, and awaited with confidence the decisions of prize tribunals, instituted to adjust national rights, and afford a fair, though tardy, redress to grievances. To these tribunals, elevated in the presence of the world, as the learned and impartial courts of nations, they have hoped, that all parties might appeal for justice, and receive a righteous award. In some instances they have been disappointed; in others they have realized their expectations. And even when they could not admit the correctness of some decisions, principles of national law have been expounded, and rules prescribed, which might serve as polestars for their future direction.

Your Memorialists, however, have witnessed, with deep regret and deep anxiety, that to some of these tribunals they can no longer appeal for safety. New interpretations of old rules, and new glosses on ancient doctrines, have been put forth to control the course of neutral commerce, and restrain, if not annihilate, its most beneficial operations. Their surprise has been greater in this respect, because the nation, which has adopted them, is one from which we had a right to expect the most conciliatory conduct; since with her ultimately centre the proceeds of our commerce, and from her we purchase the greatest portion of her staple manufactures. The interests of Great Britain and the United States seem in this respect mutual. We consume the products of her industry, and give her in return, besides large sums of money, raw materials, by which she may levy new contributions upon us. Similarity of manners and habits, of language and education, have added artificial inducements for intercourse, and gained for her among us a respect not slightly to be viewed, or inconsiderately forfeited. On all occasions, the United States have exhibited towards her an amicable disposition, and a just, and, it may be added, a generous, policy. If, therefore, we had favors to ask or receive, our claims would be peculiarly strong upon her, because we have been emphatically the sinews of her opulence. But it is believed, that the United States never asked of any nation more than justice, and are willing to be bound by the established rules of commerce. Your Memorialists, therefore, express deep regret, because the pub

lic confidence has been shaken, which may not easily be restored; and deep anxiety, because the principles alluded to, if conceded, must eventually prostrate our trade, or leave it at the arbitrary discretion of the belligerents. Whether peace or war prevail, the baneful influence of these principles will every where be felt; and in the latter predicament we shall, as neutrals, share the mischiefs of the war, without the chances of the benefits of it.

With these impressions, your Memorialists respectfully submit some observations on the nature and importance of the principles. avowed by the British High Court of Admiralty. On the present occasion they would avoid the discussion of contested points respecting the freedom of commerce, on which civilians have entertained different opinions. They would avoid the question, how far even a direct trade, carried on by neutrals between the colony and mother country, with bonâ fide neutral property, is protected by the law of nations, though it may justly be a ground of national investigation. They are willing to avoid these extrinsic, though important, subjects, and meet the principle of the English courts upon the laws and usages sanctioned by the practice of nations.

The principle recently established by Great Britain is, as your Memorialists understand it, that it is not competent for a neutral to carry on in war any trade, which he is not accustomed to do in peace; and that he shall not be permitted to effect that in a circuitous, which is inhibited in a direct, trade. As corollaries from this principle, she insists, that the colonial trade, exercised by neutrals, shall not extend beyond the accustomed peace establishment; and that whenever the neutral imports into his own country colonial produce, with the intention to tranship it to the mother country, if a direct intercourse be interdicted in peace, the circuity of the route shall not protect the property from confiscation. It seems admitted, that such circuitous route, with such intention, is not considered as evidence of enemy's property, confiscable within ordinary rules; but as a distinct, substantial, principle of condemnation, independent of the other both in efficacy and application. For it yields not to the most clear proof of neutral property, or innocent, though misdirected, conduct. The unaccustomed trade, or the importation with specific intentions, are the tests, by which every voyage is to be tried.

If these doctrines form a part of the law of nations, however mischievous they may be in operation, the United States must submit to them, until they are relaxed by particular conventions. Though