But Andrew Jackson was not alone in this rule of conduct. Statesmen before and since have declared it also,--nobody with more force and constancy than Jefferson, who was, indeed, the author of it, so far as anybody can be the author of what springs so obviously from common sense. Repeatedly he returns to it, expressing it in various forms. "Each department," he insists, "is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself _what is the meaning of the Constitution_ in the cases submitted to its action, and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal."[81] I content myself with a single text from this authority. The same rule was also announced by Hon. John Holmes, a Representative from Massachusetts, afterwards Senator from Maine, in the famous debate on the admission of Missouri. "This Constitution," he declares, "which I hold in my hand, I am sworn to support, not according to legislative or judicial exposition, _but as I shall understand it_."[82] Here is the rule of Jackson, almost in his language, twelve years before he uttered it. [81] Letter to Judge Roane, Sept. 6, 1819: Writings, Vol. VII. p. 135. See also, p. 178, Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820; and, Vol. VI. pp. 461, 462, Letter to W. H. Torrance, June 11, 1815. [82] Annals of Congress, 16th Cong. 1st Sess., I. 967, Jan. 27, 1820. And since Jackson we have the rule stated with great point in this very Chamber, by no less an authority--at least with Democrats--than Mr. Buchanan. Here are a few words from his speech on the United States Bank. "If all the judges and all the lawyers in Christendom had decided in the affirmative, when the question is thus brought home to me as a legislator, bound to vote for or against a new charter, upon my oath to support the Constitution, _I must exercise my own judgment_. I would treat with profound respect the arguments and opinions of judges and constitutional lawyers; but if after all they failed to convince me that the law was constitutional, I should be guilty of perjury before high Heaven, if I voted in its favor.... Even if the judiciary had settled the question, I should never hold myself bound by their decision.... I shall never consent to place the political rights and liberties of this people in the hands of any judicial tribunal."[83] [83] Congressional Globe, July 6, 1841, Appendix, pp. 162, 163. In short, he would exercise his own judgment: and this is precisely what I intend to do on the proposition to hunt slaves.