Sir, to you it officially belongs to "take care that the laws" of the United States "be faithfully executed." Before you, therefore, we think it our duty to lay the sentiments, which on a late painful occasion, governed us, with regard to an act passed by the legislature of the Union.

The people of the United States have vested in Congress all legislative powers "granted in the constitution."

They have vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the congress shall establish, "the judicial power of the United States"

It is worthy of remark, that in congress the whole legislative power of the United States is not vested: an important part of that power was exercised by the people themselves when they "ordained and established the constitution."

"This constitution" is "the supreme law of the land." This supreme law "all judicial officers of the United States are bound, by oath or affirmation, to support."

It is a principle, important to freedom, that, in government, the judicial should be distinct from, and independent of, the legislative department. To this important principle, the people of the United States, in forming their constitution, have manifested the highest regard.

They have placed their judicial power, not in congress, but in "courts." They have ordained that the "judges" of those courts shall hold their offices "during good behavior;" and that "during their continuance in office, their salaries shall not be diminished."

Congress have lately passed an act, "to regulate" (among other things) "the claims of invalid pensions."

Upon due consideration, we have been unanimously of opinion, that, under this act, the circuit court, held for the Pennsylvania district, could not proceed —

1. Because the business directed by this act, is not of a judicial nature; — it forms no part of the power, vested by the constitution, in the courts of the United States: the circuit court must consequently have proceeded without constitutional authority.

2. Because, if upon that business, the court had proceeded, it's judgments (for it's opinions are it's judgments) might, under the same act, have been revised and controlled by the legislature, and by an officer in the executive department, such revision and control we deemed radically inconsistent with the independence of that judicial power which is vested in the courts: and consequently, with that important principle, which is so strictly observed by the constitution of the United States.

These, Sir, are the reasons of our conduct. Be assured that, though it became necessary, it was far from being pleasant. To be obliged to act contrary either to the obvious directions of congress, or to a constitutional principle, in our judgment, equally obvious, excited feelings in us, which we hope never to experience again.

Signed, James Wilson, John Blair, Richard Peters. Philadelphia, April 18th, 1792.

American Museum, Vol. 12. Part 2d. Appendix, 2d page, 7,8. See also the letter from the judges of the federal district court of New York, to the president of the United States on the same subject, dated April 10th, 1792, and signed, by John Jay, chief justice of the United States, William Cushing, one of the associate judges of the supreme court, and James Duane, judge of the district court.