Important autograph letter signed to Peter S. Du Ponceau, asserting that the Common Law has no bearing on the laws of the United States, discussing the Framers's original intent in drafting Article III of the Constitution, and maintaining his Jeffersonian ideals.
Montpellier, VA: 14 August 1824. 4 pp., folded sheet (248 x 199 mm). Housed in a quarter morocco clamshell box. Condition : fine, with only usual folds and few minor ink smudges. a remarkable madison letter touching on the constitution, the framers’s original intent and jeffersonian democracy. This impressive letter begins with Madison thanking Du Ponceau for sending a copy of his Dissertation on the Nature and Extent of the Jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States (Philadelphia, 1824), writing “I have certainly found in the volume ample evidence of the distinguished ability of which the public had been made sensible by other fruits of your pen.” Du Ponceau (1760-1844) was a distinguished linguist, philosopher and jurist. He came to America from France during the American Revolution, serving as an aide to Baron von Steuben. Settling in Philadelphia after the war, he studied law and began practice. However, much of his time was devoted to the American Philosophical Society and his work on the languages of the Native Americans. In his Dissertation, originally a valedictory address given to the students at the Law Academy of Philadelphia, Du Ponceau reviews the role of the Federal judiciary and asserts that the Common Law was part of the “Laws of the United States” so far as it could be used for adjudication, but that it played no role in the matter of jurisdiction. With this letter, Madison takes issue with Du Ponceau’s thesis regarding the relationship between the Common Law and the Constitution, arguing that the former is not applicable at all to the “Laws of the United States” clause of Article III, Section II of the Constitution. Such an attack on the Common Law began as early as the 1790s as part of the Democratic-Republican assault on the agenda of the Federalists. Party founders Thomas Jefferson and Madison both argued that the Common Law presupposed a strong Federal judiciary which transcends adjudication by creating new legislation. Such a legal system was antithetical to the checks and balances of the Constitution and violated the rights of the States to self-govern. This argument came to a head in 1798 with the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts and Jefferson and Madison’s response in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves. In this letter, a quarter century later, Madison still holds fast to his Jeffersonian ideals. He begins his critique of Du Ponceau’s Dissertation , writing: “I must say at the same time that I have not been made a convert to the doctrine that the ‘Common Law’ as such, is a part of the law of the U. States, in their federo-national capacity. I can perceive no legitimate avenue for its admission, beyond the portions fairly embraced by the common law terms used in the Constitution, and by acts of Congress authorized by the Constitution, as necessary & proper for executing the powers which it vests in the Government. “A characteristic peculiarity of the Govt. of the U. States,” Madison continues, “is, that its powers consist of special grants taken from the general mass of power; whereas other Govts. possess the general mass with special exceptions only. Such being the plan of the Constitution, it cannot well be supposed that the Body which framed it with so much deliberation, and with so manifest a purpose of specifying its objects, and defining its boundaries, would, if intending that the Common Law should be a part of the National Code, have omitted to express or distinctly indicate the intention, when so many far inferior. “That the Constitution is predicated on the existence of the Common law cannot be questioned, because it borrows therefrom terms which must be explained by Common Law authorities. But this no more implies a general adoption or recognition of it, than the use of terms embracing articles of the Civil Law, would carry such an implication. “Nor can the Common Law be let in through the authority of the courts,” Madison argues. “That the whole of it is within their jurisdiction
Important autograph letter signed to Peter S. Du Ponceau, asserting that the Common Law has no bearing on the laws of the United States, discussing the Framers's original intent in drafting Article III of the Constitution, and maintaining his Jeffersonian ideals.
Montpellier, VA: 14 August 1824. 4 pp., folded sheet (248 x 199 mm). Housed in a quarter morocco clamshell box. Condition : fine, with only usual folds and few minor ink smudges. a remarkable madison letter touching on the constitution, the framers’s original intent and jeffersonian democracy. This impressive letter begins with Madison thanking Du Ponceau for sending a copy of his Dissertation on the Nature and Extent of the Jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States (Philadelphia, 1824), writing “I have certainly found in the volume ample evidence of the distinguished ability of which the public had been made sensible by other fruits of your pen.” Du Ponceau (1760-1844) was a distinguished linguist, philosopher and jurist. He came to America from France during the American Revolution, serving as an aide to Baron von Steuben. Settling in Philadelphia after the war, he studied law and began practice. However, much of his time was devoted to the American Philosophical Society and his work on the languages of the Native Americans. In his Dissertation, originally a valedictory address given to the students at the Law Academy of Philadelphia, Du Ponceau reviews the role of the Federal judiciary and asserts that the Common Law was part of the “Laws of the United States” so far as it could be used for adjudication, but that it played no role in the matter of jurisdiction. With this letter, Madison takes issue with Du Ponceau’s thesis regarding the relationship between the Common Law and the Constitution, arguing that the former is not applicable at all to the “Laws of the United States” clause of Article III, Section II of the Constitution. Such an attack on the Common Law began as early as the 1790s as part of the Democratic-Republican assault on the agenda of the Federalists. Party founders Thomas Jefferson and Madison both argued that the Common Law presupposed a strong Federal judiciary which transcends adjudication by creating new legislation. Such a legal system was antithetical to the checks and balances of the Constitution and violated the rights of the States to self-govern. This argument came to a head in 1798 with the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts and Jefferson and Madison’s response in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves. In this letter, a quarter century later, Madison still holds fast to his Jeffersonian ideals. He begins his critique of Du Ponceau’s Dissertation , writing: “I must say at the same time that I have not been made a convert to the doctrine that the ‘Common Law’ as such, is a part of the law of the U. States, in their federo-national capacity. I can perceive no legitimate avenue for its admission, beyond the portions fairly embraced by the common law terms used in the Constitution, and by acts of Congress authorized by the Constitution, as necessary & proper for executing the powers which it vests in the Government. “A characteristic peculiarity of the Govt. of the U. States,” Madison continues, “is, that its powers consist of special grants taken from the general mass of power; whereas other Govts. possess the general mass with special exceptions only. Such being the plan of the Constitution, it cannot well be supposed that the Body which framed it with so much deliberation, and with so manifest a purpose of specifying its objects, and defining its boundaries, would, if intending that the Common Law should be a part of the National Code, have omitted to express or distinctly indicate the intention, when so many far inferior. “That the Constitution is predicated on the existence of the Common law cannot be questioned, because it borrows therefrom terms which must be explained by Common Law authorities. But this no more implies a general adoption or recognition of it, than the use of terms embracing articles of the Civil Law, would carry such an implication. “Nor can the Common Law be let in through the authority of the courts,” Madison argues. “That the whole of it is within their jurisdiction
Try LotSearch and its premium features for 7 days - without any costs!
Be notified automatically about new items in upcoming auctions.
Create an alert
.jpg "Source: Christie's")
.jpg "Source: Christie's")
