Part 57

Footnote 236:

The judiciary is the only department of government, in a republic, the officers of which ought (conformably to the principles of that form of government) to be permanent in their stations. Judges, in order to secure their independence, and thereby enable them to administer justice faithfully and impartially, should hold their offices quamdiu se bené gesserint: and, should they violate the condition of this tenure, the constitution should provide, as that of Pennsylvania, in conformity to those of the union as well as her sister states, does, that they should no longer continue in office. Thus, this branch of the government would have formed the only safe and effectual check, against such unconstitutional attempts as might be made upon the chartered rights of individuals or the public, by either the legislative or executive power. But, unfortunately, the dependent nature of the judiciary, under the constitution of 1776, rendered it incompetent to that end. Hence, as was noticed by the writer of these memoirs on a former occasion, “the framers of the first constitution of the state of Pennsylvania discovered the indispensable necessity of providing some tribunal for preserving the constitution entire. They accordingly instituted a periodical body, in the nature of a judicial inquest, and styled the council of censors; whose duty it was, “to enquire whether the constitution had been preserved inviolate in every part; and whether the legislative and executive branches of government had performed their duty, as guardians of the people, or exercised other or greater powers, than they were entitled to by the constitution.” “This censorial tribunal was, however, ill calculated to answer the purposes of its institution. It was, itself, a temporary body, appointed immediately by the people. In the alternation, and casual ascendency, of different parties in the country, a contingency inseparable from the nature of a popular government, the council of sensors became the representatives of the passions, the prejudices, the political interests, of whatever party might happen to be the predominant one at the moment of their election. If this should prove to be the same party with that which had borne the sway, during the seven years immediately preceding their election, they would be disposed to sanction the proceedings of that party: otherwise, they would be likely to censure and pronounce unconstitutional, the official measures of an adverse party, without just cause, impelled thereto by a spirit of party-hostility.

“Under a government thus constituted, all would be uncertain and insecure. From the deficiency of one stationary and independent department in its administration, the rights of the people and the best interests of the state would, eventually, become the sport of opposite and contending parties; these rights and interests would be sacrificed at the shrine of some desperate and unprincipled faction; the constitution itself, destitute of any steady disinterested support against their machinations, would be overthrown: till, finally, the people, having no longer any rallying point of security for their persons or property, would be driven from anarchy and licentiousness into the arms of despotism.

“It is further worthy of remark, that the council of censors was an inefficient and a nugatory tribunal, in one most important particular: Numerous unconstitutional acts of the legislature might have been carried into effect, and have had their complete operation, attended by the most unjust and ruinous consequences, before they could be even pronounced unconstitutional.”

Footnote 236a:

In a pamphlet, entitled “The Constitutionalist; addressed to men of all parties in the United States”—published in Philadelphia, in the year 1804.

-----

The other was composed of the projectors of the constitution of 1776, and other speculative politicians; together with all those whom they were enabled to influence, through the medium of their prejudices, their inexperience or their interests.

These two parties continued to divide the state, until the adoption of the fœderal constitution. The great and multiplied evils which resulted to the people of the United States, after the restoration of peace, and which had also been severely felt during the greater part of the war, from the inefficacy of the original confœderation of the States, had convinced all thinking men of the necessity of forming a more energetic national government, as the only remedy for those evils. And the actual formation of such a government, aided by the long experience which the citizens of Pennsylvania had then acquired, of the injurious effects of their own existing constitution, disposed them soon after to establish the present constitution of the state, which was done in convention on the 2d of September 1790; a form of government, free from the palpable errors of the preceding one, and much more consonant to the genius and spirit of the fœderal constitution.

It is, then, a very extraordinary circumstance, and one that reflects great honour on the character of Mr. Rittenhouse, that, in the long course of years during which the people of Pennsylvania were thus divided into two contending parties, he alone could unite the favourable opinion of both parties, respecting his superior claims to hold one of the most important offices in the government.

Although little more than six years and an half intervened, from the time of Mr. Rittenhouse’s resigning the treasurership of the state, until the period of his decease, literary and other public honours then flowed in upon him. He enjoyed, likewise, the satisfaction of experiencing, during that short interval, multiplied proofs of the esteem in which his abilities and character were held, both at home and abroad. And, notwithstanding it appears to have been his wish, when he retired from the treasury, to decline for the future any official situation, or public employment of any kind, not connected with science; in order that he might, without interruption, devote the remainder of his life to his favourite pursuits; a variety of public trusts, some of them requiring arduous duties, were constantly pressed upon his acceptance.

Shortly before he resigned the treasurership, the degree of Doctor of Laws was conferred on Mr. Rittenhouse, by the College of New-Jersey: his diploma bears date the 30th of September, 1789. This respectable seminary had given him the degree of Master in the Arts, seventeen years before; and this new honour was a further pledge of the high estimation in which he continued to be held by the regents of the institution. His diploma for the Doctorate has a place in the Appendix.

-----

Footnote 237:

In September, 1772.

-----

The College at Princeton, in New Jersey, then possessed—as she still does—the first Orrery constructed by Dr. Rittenhouse; a monument of his genius and abilities, that seemed to give him a just claim to this highest academical honour, appropriate to his character, which the college could confer.

This institution, called Nassau Hall, was founded about the year 1738; but its original charter was enlarged by Governor Belcher, in 1747. The president and trustees of Nassau Hall possessed a power, by their charter, of granting to “the students of the college, or to any others thought worthy of them, all such degrees as are granted in either of the universities, or any other college, in Great Britain.” This privilege, it is believed, was not enjoyed generally—if at all, in any other instance, by the American colleges, before the revolution; as it is supposed they were restricted, prior to that era, to the conferring of degrees in the Arts only. But all the superior seminaries of learning, in the United States, now possess the right of creating Bachelors and Doctors, in Divinity, Law, and Medicine: and it is greatly to be wished, that they may always dispense these high academic honours with impartiality and a due discretion.

-----

Footnote 238:

Unless, perhaps, in that of King’s College (now Columbia College,) in New-York.

-----

The college-edifice at Princeton is a stately and durable one, constructed of stone; and it will afford satisfaction to the reader, to be informed, that in this building is deposited the Rittenhouse Orrery. He will derive additional pleasure from learning, that this grand machine has, lately, been repaired in some considerable degree, and at a great expence, by the ingenious Mr. Henry Voight, of the Mint: by whom, that belonging to the University of Pennsylvania, has likewise been put in good order. Neither of these Orreries appeared to have suffered any material injury from the British troops, during the war of the revolution; though it has been generally believed, they did. The libraries, indeed, and some of the apparatus, belonging to both the colleges in which the Orreries are placed, experienced great losses from the presence of an hostile army in their vicinity: but the officers of that army seem to have respected these greater works of human ingenuity.

-----

Footnote 239:

Dr. Morse observes, that, before the American war, the College of New-Jersey was furnished with a philosophical apparatus, valued at more than thirteen hundred dollars; “which, except the elegant Orrery constructed by Mr. Rittenhouse,” says the Doctor, “was almost entirely destroyed by the British army, in the late war; as was also the library, which now” (this was in 1789) “consists of between two and three thousand volumes.”

With a view to the obtaining, with greater certainty, information respecting the condition &c. of the Orrery in Princeton College, the writer of these memoirs addressed a letter on the subject, to his worthy and much respected friend, the Rev. Samuel Stanhope Smith, D. D. then president of that institution: To that letter the learned president promptly returned the following answer:

Princeton, May 3d, 1812.