GUNNING BEDFORD, JUNIOR

United States District Judge, District of Delaware

1789—1812

Paper on the Life of Gunning Bedford, Junior, by
John P. Nields, read November 18th, 1907, upon
presentation of Portrait to the United States Courts
at Wilmington, Delaware.University of
Delaware

Memorial

LibraryGUNNING BEDFORD, JUNIOR.

1747. Born at Philadelphia.

1771. Graduated at Princeton.

1778—1789. Attorney General of Delaware.

1783—1786. Member of Continental Congress.

1787. Deputy to convention that framed Constitution
of United States.

1787. Deputy to Delaware convention that ratified Con-
stitution of United States.

1789—1812. United States District Judge for District
of Delaware.

1812. Died.GUNNING BEDFORD, JUNIOR.

Gunning Bedford, Junior, was bom at Philadelphia
in 1747. The name of his father and grandfather was
also Gunning. The grandfather resided in Cecil County,
Maryland. The father was a captain in the French and
Indian War and afterwards a successful architect in Phila-
delphia. His mother was Susanna Jacquett. There were
eleven children, Gunning being the fifth child and second
son.1

In 1771 he graduated at Nassau Hall, aged twenty-
four, in the class with James Madison and Hugh Bracken-
ridge. While a student he married Jane Ballaroux Parker
who was five years his senior. She came to Princeton with
her baby to hear his valedictory address at commencement.
Mrs. Bedford was a very accomplished lady. She spoke
French fluently as her mother was a native of France.
She had assisted her father, James Parker, in editing his
newspaper “The Post Boy of New York,”2

Franklin was a life-long friend of James Parker and
took a lively interest in the Bedfords as shown in his letters.
Writing to Mrs. Bedford from London on April 9, 1773,
he addresses her as “Dear Jenky” and refers to “the anc-
ient friendship that so long subsisted between Mr. Parker
and me, whose memory as an honest, worthy man I shall
always honour” and closes with “Present my affectionate
respects to your good mother and my compliments to
Mr. Bedford, though unknown, to whom with yourself
I wish all happiness in your marriage.”3 Some years

1.—Gunning Bedford, Jr. by H. C. Conrad, 3 Delaware Historical Papers.

2.—Life and correspondence of George Read, p. 510. Montgomery’s Reminis-
cences of Wilmington, p. 288.

3.—Life and writings of Benjamin Franklin by A. H. Smyth, Vol.6, p. 36.later Franklin requested a service from Bedford and ended
his letter with “ Permit me to present my love to my good
friend Jenky and accept my best wishes of health and
happiness to both of you and your voung family.”1

After graduation Bedford returned to Philadelphia
and studied law under Joseph Read. Having been ad-
mitted to the Bar he removed to Dover. He practiced
there a short while and then permanently settled in Wil-
mington.

What part Bedford took in the Revolutionary War
is uncertain. Miss Montgomery describes him as ‘‘an
officer of the Revolution.”2 His daughter Henrietta in
her will, says: ‘‘During the Revolutionary War General
Washington, desiring my father to go from Trenton to
New York on some important secret embassy at night,
and fearing he was not sufficiently armed with the pistols
in his holsters, presented him with a pair of pocket pistols
with a view to his protection and greater security.”

Bedford was Attorney General of Delaware for eleven ,
years—from 1778 until his appointment as District Judge
in 1789. The records of the Court of General Quarter
Sessions of the Peace and Gaol Delivery show that he was
engaged in prosecuting cases of assault and battery, lar-
ceny, fornication, horse stealing, keeping tippling houses,
&c. Unfortunately the history of some interesting cases
is lost with the records of the Court of Oyer and Terminer.
During the Revolution indictments for treason were found
against a number of British sympathizers in Delaware.
Bedford prosecuted the celebrated case of State v. Cheney
Clow. Clow lived in the forest near Kenton in Little Creek
Hundred. When the Sheriff went to arrest him on a charge
of treason he found the house barricaded. Clow, with
the aid of his wife, offered desperate resistance and was not

1.—Manuscript letter in Congressional Library.

2.—Montgomery’s Reminiscences of Wilmington, p. 288.captured until he had killed a man named Moore, one of
the Sheriff’s posse. Clow wras wearing, when taken, a full
British uniform. On December 10, 1782 he was tried
for treason at a special session of the court of Oyer and
Terminer at Dover. In defense he exhibited a commis-
sion as captain in the British Army, and claiming to
be a prisoner of war, he was acquitted. This verdict
aroused the greatest popular indignation. On May 5,
1783 at another term of the Court at Dover he was tried
and convicted of the murder of Moore.1

While Attorney General, Bedford served in the Conti-
nental Congress from 1783 to 1786. During this period
the war ended. While in Congress Bedford writes of this
in several letters.

Philadelphia, March 12, 1783

Dear Sir:—

I take the earliest opportunity of communicating the in-
telligence brought by Capt. Barney. He brings us the prelim-
inaries as settled between us and Britain, and which are to make a
part of the definitive treaty when finished between the belligerent
powers. They acknowledge the independence of the States,
have bounded Nova Scotia and Canada agreeable to the treaty of
Paris, given us a line from thence through all the northern lakes,
from thence to the head waters of the Mississippi, then down the
waters of that river to Florida and then to the sea coast including
all the isles within 20 leagues of our coast. This gives us a vast
extent of country back not included with any of our states, reserves
to us the navigation of those great lakes of the fine river Mississippi
which we are to enjoy in common with them. We are to have
equal privileges in the fisheries, to take and cure fish on the un-
inhabited isles as usual, but if on the land in territory of either,
the permission of the inhabitants to be obtained. All old debts
contracted before the war on either side to be paid, and our commis-
sioners agree that Congress shall recommend to the different States
to repeal their confiscatory laws, and to permit the offenders to
come in and purchase of the holders by paying the real value of
the consideration they had paid for the property, that the property
of British subjects shall also be restored, and that all others shall
have the privilege of staying one year to settle their affairs, that
no more confiscations shall be made and no further prosecutions.

1.—Huffington’s Delaware Register, Vol. II, p. 220.fi

for offences hitherto committed. The whole of this you will ob-
serve is but a recommendation, which the wisdom of each State
will not hesitate to reject, and only consented to, to gratify in
appearance the foolish pride of Britain. The preliminaries give
satisfaction, and come up to the full wish of every American, we
had rather the mention of refugees had been omitted, but in fact
it amounts to nothing as it stands, and is a mere finesse to avoid
doing anything for them.

Barney had a letter from Franklin as late as the 6th of January.
He left France the 17th January and his dispatches were made up
the 5th and 14th of December. The preliminaries signed the
30th November. In Franklin’s letter to Barney he says the ne-
gotiations seem further from a conclusion than they expected.
The Count de Vergennes in his letter to Franklin enclosing dis-
patches to the French Minister here, says that he still rather hopes
that the definitive treaty will be completed.

By all these you will find a peace still doubtful, and our hopes
and fears not yet satisfied.

Should tomorrow’s papers produce anything, I will send them
to you, if the preliminaries should not be published, I will copy
them and send them down.

I am in great haste, with compliments to the family.

Your most obedient and very humble servant,
Gunning Bedford, Jr.

His Excellency

Nicholas Van Dyke, Esquire,

Governor of Delaware,

New Castle.”l

Philadelphia, March 24, 1783.

Dear Sir:—

I do myself the honor to inclose you a hand-bill containing
the most agreeable intelligence of the signature of the General
Preliminaries of Peace.

We have to thank the Marquis Lafayette for the early in-
formation, who obtained leave that the sloop of war called The
Triumph, who touched here, though but the secondary purpose
of her voyage.

I most sincerely congratulate you upon the happy prospect
of public liberty and independence.

The Superintendent of Marine is directed to call in all our
cruisers, and dispatches are sent to New York informing Sir Guy
and Digby of the news that they may take the necessary steps on
their side,

I am with great regards,

Your obedient and very humble servant,

To	Gunning	Bedford, Jr.

George Read, 1st

1,—Letter from Manuscript collection of Mr. Richard S. Rodney.Philadelphia, March 24th, ’83

Dear Sir:—

I do myself the honor to enclose you extracts from some dis-

f>atches received last night by Sloop of war from Cadiz under cover
rom the Marquis La Fayette informing us of the signature of the
preliminary articles of a general peace among the belligerent powers.
France keeps Tobago and Senegal, she restores to Britain Grenada,
St. Vincent’s, Dominique, (Dominica), St. Christopher’s. Britain
restores to Holland St. Eustatius, Demarari, (Demarara), Esquebo,
(Essequibo), Berbice. Britain restores to France Gorie, (Goree),
St. Lucia, St. Pier, (Pierre), and Miquilon, (Miquelon). The fish-
eries between Great Britain and France on the Coast of New Found-
land to continue as in the treaty of 1763, except from the coast of
the Cape of Boni-Visto, (Bonavista) to Cape St. John which is
ceded to Britain. France to be established in the East Indies as
well at Bengal as on the eastern and western coast of Presque isle,
(Presqu’ ile-de-Giens) as regulated by the treaty of 63. The
article of preceding treaties concerning the demolition of Dunkirk
shall be suppressed. Spain to retain Minorca and West Florida,
Great Britain to cede East Florida to Spain, an arrangement to be
made between Spain and Britain about cutting of wood at Cam-
peachy in the Bay of Honduras. Britain to retain the Dutch
settlement of Negapatam in the East Indies, Great Britain to
restore Trinquemala (Trincomalee) to the Dutch if not retaken.
Britain acknowledges the sovereignty and independence of thirteen
United States. The limits of the United States to be as agreed
upon as agreed on by the provisional articles, except that they
shall not extend further down the river Mississippi than the 32d
degree of North latitude from whence a line to be drawn to the
head of the river St. Mary’s, and along the middle of that river to
its mouth. The Capt. of the Sloop of war has written orders of
Count D’Estaing to inform all cruisers of the signing the prelim-
inaries and to call in all the French frigates and all other vessels
belonging to his Majesty.

I most sincerely congratulate you on the most agreeable
intelligence and on the glorious prospects of peace and happiness.
The general signature to be placed on the 25th February, official
accounts are hourly expected. The Marquis out of his abundant
love for America, procured this Sloop from D’Estaing to come with
the earliest intelligence.

I am with much regard,

Your obedient and humble servant,

Gunning Bedford, Jr.

N. B. The above was wrote in great haste, the moment
the dispatches were read since I have got a hand bill which will
be more satisfactory. Our Superintendent of Marine is directed
to call in all our cruisers, and letters are dispatched immediately
to New York with the intelligence.

His Excellency

Nicholas Van Dyke, Esquire,

Governor of Delaware, l

1.—Letter from Manuscript collection of Mr. Richard S. Rodney.The Journals of the Continental Congress for June
12, 1777 narrate an episode of considerable historical
importance. It was the occasion for a strong resolution
by Congress establishing the freedom of debate. Whether
it relates to this Gunning Bedford or to his cousin, Gunning
Bedford, a prominent officer in the Revolutionary Army,
is uncertain. It undoubtedly presents correctly the temper
and character of the subject of this paper. It appears
that Bedford was in Philadelphia but not in attendance
as a member of Congress, and that Jonathan D. Sargeant
a member of Congress, referred to him in some way in
open debate. Thereupon Bedford sent to Sargeant the
following challenge to fight a duel:

Sir :—

You having reflected very illiberally on my character, and re-
fusing to give me that satisfaction, which a gentleman is entitled
to; without further ceremony I beg you will meet me at 6 o’clock
on Friday morning at the Centre House armed with a Pair of Pistols.

I await impatiently your answer and expect it immediately.

Your humble servant,

Gunning Bedford.

City Tavern, Wednesday night.”l

In reply Sargeant wrote to Bedford:

“Sir:—

I do not recollect mentioning your character or name on any
occasion unless in Congress in the course of business. For my
conduct there I conceive I am answerable only to that Body and
to my constituents. I flatter myself, however, that no illiberal
expressions have escaped me respecting either you or any other
subject.

“Your humble Servant,

Wednesday.	Jona.	D.	Sargent.”l

Bedford replied:

1.—Manuscript letter in Congressional Library.“Sir:—

The reputation of a gentleman is not to be trifled with and you
have attempted to injure mine, for which I expect the satisfaction
of a man of honor.

Your evasion is mean and pitiable; and so far from being
an extenuation of the insult, the place where the assertion was
made rather heightens it. I have been much abused and ill-treated
by the arbitrary and ungenerous conduct of that House and have
long wished to lay my hands on some one particular member whom
I could prove had traduced my character. I am at length so
happy as to have fixed on one and could only wish he was an ob-
ject more worthy of resentment.

I am by no means satisfied, sir, with your answer. I am de-
termined and fixed as to my conduct and must insist on it, that
you either make me an ample acknowledgement for what you have
said, or meet me according to my appointment. I will accept of
no excuse whatever. I will expect no further trouble in the matter.
If you refuse to make me the satisfaction I ask as to meet me at
the place appointed; remember, I shall treat you as a scoundrel
wherever I meet you and publish you to the world asa person desti-
tute of every spark of honor, a poltroon and a coward.

Your humble servant,

Gunning Bedford.

Thursday morn. 8 o’clock.

Jon. D. Sargent.” l

On June 13, 1777 Thomas Heyward, a member of
Congress, offered the following resolution:

RESOLVED that Congress have and always have
authority to protect their members from insult for anything
by them said or done in Congress, in the exercise of their
duty, which is a privilege essential to the freedom of debate,
and to the faithful discharge of the great trust reposed
in them by their constituents.

RESOLVED that Mr. Gunning Bedford be served
with a copy of these letters (letters received by Sargeant)
and that he be summoned to attend Congress tomorrow
morning at eleven o’clock to answer for his conduct.”2

In obedience to the summons Bedford appeared and
spoke on the floor in justification of his conduct. There-

1.—Manuscript letter in Congressional Library.

2.—Papers of the Continental Congress No. 36, IV, folio 191, in Congressional

Library.upon he was requested to ask the pardon of the House and
the member challenged. This he did and was dismissed.

By an Act of Assembly of Delaware dated June 23,

1786 Bedford with George Read, Jacob Broom, John
Dickinson and Richard Bassett was appointed a Del-
aware Commissioner to meet Commissioners from other
States at Annapolis “for the purpose of considering the
trade of the United States, to examine the relative situ-
ations and trade of the said States, to consider how far
an uniform system in their commercial regulations may
be necessary to their common interest and permanent
harmony and to report to the United States in Congress
assembled such an act relative to this great object ’’ &c.
Only four States were represented at Annapolis. A report
to Congress by Dickinson, the President of the Convention,
recommended the calling of another convention at Phila-
delphia.1

By an Act of Assembly dated April 2, 1787 the same
persons were appointed Deputies from Delaware to meet
Deputies from other States at Philadelphia on May 2,

1787 “to join with them in advising, deliberating on and
discussing such alterations and further provisions, as
may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution ade-
quate to the exigencies of the Union; * * * So always
and provided, that such alterations and further provisions
or any of them, do not extend to that part of the fifth
article of the Confederation of the said States, finally
ratified on March 1, 1781, which declares that in deter-
mining questions in the United States in Congress as-
sembled each State shall have one vote.”2

On May 28, 1787 Bedford took his seat in the Con-
vention and regularly attended its sessions. His speeches
as reported in Madison’s Debates are confined to two or

1.—Life and Correspondence of George Read 430.

2.—2 Laws of Delaware 893.three subjects. His plan of Government was apparently
a simple one. He believed in a federal government whose
powers should be vested in Congress and withheld from the
Executive. He feared the undue preponderance of the
larger states and repeatedly insisted upon equal State
representation.

In discussing the general powers of Congress it is re-
ported, “Mr. Bedford was opposed to every check on the
Legislative, even the Council of Revision first proposed.
He thought it would be sufficient to mark out in the Con-
stitution the boundaries to the Legislative Authority,
which would give all the requisite security to the rights of
the other departments. The representatives of the people
were the best judges of what was for their interest, and
ought to be under no external control whatever. The
two branches would produce a sufficient control within the
Legislature itself.”1 And on a later day “Mr. Bedford
moved that the clause defining the powers of Congress be
so altered as to read ‘ and moreover, to legislate in all cases
for the general interests of the Union and also in those in
which the States are separately incompetent, or in which the
harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the
exercise of individual legislation.’”2 This motion prevailed
and was adopted by the Convention, although Randolph
declared “it involved the power of violating all the laws
and constitutions of the States and of intermeddling with
their police.”3 Recently the language of this resolution
offered by Bedford was declared to properly define the
measure of power intended to be conferred upon Con-
gress by the Constitution.4

1.—3 Documentary History of the Constitution 58.

2.—3 Documentary History of the Constituton 350.

3.—3 Documentary History of the Constitution 351.

4.—Speech of Judge Amidon before American Bar Association, Annual Meeting

at Portland, September 2, 1907; Speech of President Roosevelt at St. Louis,

October 2, 1907.In discussing the proper powers of the Executive,
Bedford approved a Presidential term of three rather than
seven years.1 He seconded Dickinson’s motion, “That
the Executive be made removable by the National Legis-
lature on the request of a majority of the legislatures of
individual States.”2 He desired federal judges to be
appointed by the Senate.3

Bedford was ever mindful of the express proviso in
his commission against depriving Delaware of an equal
representation with the other States in Congress. Devotion
to his own State led him to make the most intemperate
speech uttered in the convention. In discussing the
basis of representation in Congress, “ Mr. Bedford contend-
ed there was no middle way between a perfect consolid-
ation and the mere confederacy of the States. The first
is out of the question, and in the latter they must continue
if not perfectly, yet equally sovereign. If political Societies
possess ambition, avarice, and all the other passions which
render them formidable to each other, ought we not to
view them in this light here? Will not the same motives-
operate in America as elsewhere? If any gentleman
doubts it let him look at the votes. Have they not been
dictated by interest, by ambition ? Are not the large States
evidently seeking to aggrandise themselves at the expense
of the small? * * * The three large States have a common
interest to bind them together in commerce. But whether
combination as we suppose, or a competition as others
suppose, shall take place among them,	in	either	case,	the

smaller States must be ruined. We must	like	Solon	make

such a Government as the people will approve. Will the
smaller States ever agree to the proposed degradation of
them? It is not true that the people will not agree to
enlarge the powers of the present Congress. The Language

1.—3 Documentary History of the Constitution 40.

2.—3 Documentary History of the Constitution 48.

3.—3 Documentary History of the Constitution 366.of the people has been that Congress ought to have the
power of collecting an impost, and of coercing the States
when it may be necessary. On the first point they have
been explicit and in a manner, unanimous in their declar-
ations. And must they not agree to this and similar
measures if they ever mean to discharge their engagements?
The little States are willing to observe their engagements,
but will meet the large ones on no ground but that of
Confederation. We have been told with a dictatorial air
that this is the last moment for a fair trial in favor of a
good Government. It will be the last indeed if the pro-
positions reported from the Committee go forth to the
people. He was under no apprehensions. The Large
States dare not dissolve the confederation. If they do
the small ones will find some foreign ally of more honor
and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do
them justice.”1

The suggestion of an alliance between the small States
and some continental power against the large States brought
down on Bedford’s head the severest censure. King of
New York “could not sit down without taking some notice
of the language of the honorable gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Bedford). It was not he that had uttered a dicta-
torial language. This intemperance had marked the
honorable gentleman himself. It was not he who, with a
vehemence unprecedented in that house, had declared
himself ready to turn his hopes from our Common Country
and court the protection of some foreign hand—this, too,
was the language of the honorable member himself.
He was grieved that such a thought had entered into his
heart. He was more grieved that such an expression had
dropped from his lips. The gentleman could only excuse
it to himself on the score of passion.”2

1.—3 Documentary History of the Constitution 258.

2.—3 Documentary History of the Constitution 262.On a subsequent day Randolph “animadverted on
the warm and rash language of Mr. Bedford on Saturday.”1
Madison said “he was not apprehensive that the people
of the small States would obstinately refuse to accede to
a Government founded on just principles and promising
them substantial protection. He could not suspect that
Delaware would brave the consequences of seeking her
fortunes apart from the other States, rather than submit
to such a Government; much less could he suspect that
she would pursue the rash policy of courting foreign support,
which the warmth of one of her representatives had sug-
gested, or if she should that any foreign nation would be
so rash as to harken to the overture.”2

Bedford replied to his critics. “He found that what
he had said as to the small States being taken by the hand
had been misunderstood; and he rose to explain. He did
not mean that the small States would court the aid and
interposition of foreign powers. He meant that they would
not consider the federal compact as dissolved until it should
be so by the acts of the larger States. In this case the
consequence of the breach of faith on their part, and the
readiness of the small States to fulfill their engagements,
would be that foreign nations having demands on this
country would find it to their interest to take the small
States by the hand in order to do them justice. This
was what he meant. But no man can foresee to what
extremities the small States may be driven by oppression.
He observed also in apology that some allowance ought to
to be made for the habits of his profession in which warmth
was natural and sometimes necessary. But is there not
an apology in what was said by Mr. Gouverneur Morris that
the sword is to unite; by Mr. Gorham that Delaware must
be annexed to Pennsylvania and New Jersey divided

1.—3 Documentary History of the Constitution 268.

2.—3 Documentary History of the Constitution 272, 273.between Pennsylvania and New York? To hear such
language without emotion, would be to renounce the feel-
ings of a man and the duty of a citizen.”1

Bedford was a member of the Delaware Convention
that ratified the Federal Constitution on December 7,1787.
The resolution of the Convention was as follows:—“We
the Deputies of the People of the Delaware State, in
convention met, having taken into our serious consideration
the Federal Constitution proposed and agreed upon by the
Deputies of the United States in a general convention
held at the City of Philadelphia on the seventeenth day of
September, A. D. 1787, have approved, assented to, ratified
and confirmed and by these presents do, in virtue of the
power and authority to us given for that purpose, for and
in behalf of ourselves and our constituents, fully, freely
and entirely approve of, assent to, ratify and confirm the
said Constitution.”2

Under the new Constitution George Read and Richard
Bassett were the Delaware senators. While the first
Judiciary Bill, providing for the establishment of this court,
was under consideration in the Senate, a copy of the Bill
was sent by Read for Bedford’s criticism. On June 16,
1789 Read wrote from New York to Dickinson:—“As the
bill to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States
is for the consideration of the Senate, Mr. Bassett and my-
self have thought it our duty to transmit the inclosed copy
of the same to you for your perusal and comments upon its
respective provisions, hoping that we may obtain them in
time before the Senate shall have entered upon the third
reading—the second reading being appointed for Monday
next as in a Committee of the whole; after which it is to
be gone over on such its second reading in the Senate,
as a House. Mr. Bassett and myself hope that we shall

1.—3 Documentary History of the Constitution 276.

2.—2 Documentary History of the Constitution 25.be favored in time with a return of the copy, with your
observations thereon in its margin. And we must beg
the favor of you to give the Attorney General, Mr. Bedford,
an opportunity to peruse and consider this copy, expect-
ing his observations also," &C.1

Bedford replied as follows:—

Wilmington, June 24th, 1789.

“Dear Sir:—

Your letter of the 16th only came to my hands this morning,
and Mr. Dickinson last evening sent me a copy of the proposed law,
with a request that I would make my observations on it and re-
turn it to him this morning to be sent back to New York by this
day’s post.

I should ill requite the honor done me by the communication,
and but abuse the confidence reposed in me, were I to attempt
any remarks on a subject of so much importance, so entirely new
to me, with so little time for reading or reflection. To those who
have thoroughly digested the whole system, and who have con-
sidered this as the foundation upon which the most grand and
elegant superstructure of jurisprudence is to be built, crude and
hasty thoughts can give no information. The objects are too ex-
tensive and complicated for me so immediately to understand that
I might make a just criticism on this proposed bill. It appears
to me a noble work, and must do the framers of it, as well as our
government, great credit. I flatter myself our State governments
will have wisdom enough to follow the example in new modelling
their legal systems.

It will be very difficult accurately to define the jurisdiction
of the Federal courts, so as to prevent controversies with the State
Courts. Indefinite expressions, unavoidably made use of, will
create difficulties. Common law and statute law are referred
to in the act. Have the States the same accurate and fixed idea
of both or either as applied to themselves individually or to the
States generally ? Do we refer to the common law or statute law
of England? This is derogatory. What, then, is the common and
statute law of the United States? It is difficult to answer. Yet
the dignity of America requires that it be ascertained, and that
where we refer to laws they should be laws of our own country.
If the principles of the laws of any country are good and worthy
of adoption, incorporate them into your own. I think we ought
not to refer, at this day, to the law of any nation as the rule of our
conduct. This is the moment for legal emancipation; as the found-
ation is laid so must the superstructure be built. Pardon these

1.—Life and Correspondence of George Read 480.observations, sir, I am transgressing my own bounds. Your good
sense would rather censure than approve (under my circumstances)
any further remarks.

You will be pleased to present my respects to Mr. Bassett,
and my acquaintance in Congress.

I am, with much respect and consideration, your most obedient
humble servant,

Gunning Bedford, Junior.

George Read, Esquire.”l

Washington appointed Bedford the United States
District Judge for the Delaware District on September 26,
1789. The commissions of ten of the thirteen original
Districts Judges bore that date. On the following day
Washington, writing to Edmond Randolph, the newly
appointed Attorney General, said:—“Impressed with a
conviction that the due administration of justice is the
firmest pillar of government, I have considered the first
arrangement of the judicial department as essential to
the happiness of our country, and to the stability of its
political system. Hence the selection of the fittest char-
acters to expound the laws and dispense justice has been
an invariable object of my anxious concern.”2

The district judges were selected on account of dis-
tinguished public service. Nearly all had served in the
Continental Congress. Bedford of Delaware, Brearly of
New Jersey and Pendleton of Georgia had participated
in the great debates in the Constitutional Convention of
1787 under the eye of Washington. General Sullivan
of New Hampshire and Duane of New York had been leaders
in State conventions called to ratify the Federal Consti-
tution. Hopkinson of Pennsylvania and Drayton of South
Carolina were Judges in State Admiralty courts. Lowell
of Massachusetts, Paca of Maryland and Griffin of Georgia

1.—Life and Correspondence of George Read 482.

2.—Sparks’ Letters of Washington.with Read of Delaware were the judges in “The Court of
Appeals in cases of Capture,” a tribunal created by the
Congress in 1780 and the forerunner of the Supreme Court
of the United States.1

The first Judiciary Act divided the country into thir-
teen districts and three circuits. Under this Act, the
District and Circuit courts were held alternately at New
Castle and Dover. The Circuit Court consisted of one or
two Supreme Court Justices and the District Judge. The
Supreme Court Justice who regularly sat with Bedford was
Wilson in the early days and afterwards Chase, although
each of the other Associate Justices occasionally sat with
him. For a year Bedford did not sit in the Circuit Court.
By the Judiciary Act of February 13, 1801 each circuit
was provided with three Circuit Judges. The act relieved
Supreme Court Justices and District Judges from Circuit
Court work. Richard Bassett of Delaware, William
Tilghman of Pennsylvania and William Griffith of New
Jersey were appointed for the third circuit but held court
at Dover in October 1801 and June 1802. These circuit
Judgeships were abolished in 1802 and the old order was
restored.

From the beginning the District and Circuit courts
were clothed with a large measure of their present juris-
diction. Yet the records during the time of Judge Bedford
show that comparatively little business was done in his
court. By far the most important litigation arose from
the seizure of vessels and their cargoes for violations of
the revenue laws and the non-intercourse and embargo

1.—See 30 Federal Cases, Appendix.acts.1 Between 1795 and 1812 thirty-eight seizures by
the United States were made in this district. Ten of these
cases were appealed to the Circuit Court and the decrees
in two cases wrere reversed. Eight of these ten cases in
turn were appealed to the Supreme Court. In the joint
appeals of Peisch v. Ware and United States v. The Cargo
of the Ship Favorite, 4 Cranch, 347, Marshall construed
the Revenue Act of 1799 and held that goods saved from
a derelict ship without custom house marks were not for-

1 The District Court for the district of Delaware, has been sitting
three days, examining witnesses in support of informations lodged
against the speculators of Baltimore, Wilmington, (Del.) Phila-
delphia, Bridgetown, (New Jersey,) and New York. It has been
proved, that vessels under American papers, are trading boldly
in the Island of St. Domingo. Some nave degraded our flag so
far as to coast it for the contending powers of that devoted island.
Some of our seamen have been forced by the masters of vessels
into this infamous trade, and others have been imprisoned and
left on the island, for refusing to serve under the Haytian colors.

It appears that many of the agents for British vessels now
in our ports, that must depart in ballast, are also agents for vessels
under American colors, lading with corn meal, white oak hogshead
staves, and other articles, suitable for the Jamaica market; that
those vessels are clearing out for St. Jago de Cuba; and that large
quantities of provisions are collected in the district of Bridgetown,
on the Jersey side of the Delaware—and passengers assemble there
waiting the arrival of British vessels bound out. A large schooner
owned at Bridgetown, has lately been stopped in the district of
Delaware, by the cutter Gen. Green, without clearance (as the non-
intercourse law, 3d sect. provides) from Philadelphia, said to be
bound to St. Jago de Cuba, with an assorted cargo between decks
and 15,000 white oak hogshead staves on deck. The agent—the
noted doctor of Sally memory.

On the 20th inst. the schooner Experiment, burthen 102 tons,
from Philadelphia, said to be bound to St. Jago de Cuba, was
boarded by the officer of the revenue cutter—no clearance on
board—cargo assorted—198 barrels Indian meal, and sundry
other articles on board, better suited for the Jamaica market than
St. Jago.

(American Watchman and Delaware Republican for September 23, 1809.)feited and were subject to salvage.1 At least half the fines
and forfeitures in these cases inured to the benefit of the
Collector and informant. The seizures were due to the
remarkable courage and vigor of Col. Allen McLane,
Collector of the Port of Wilmington for many years.2

No judicial utterance of Judge Bedford is preserved
in the records of the Delaware District except one. It
has no other significance. On June 16, 1802 in the case of
United States v. Part of the Cargo of the Schooner Dela-
ware the following decree was filed:—

“On the within statement of facts, which is submitted as the
ground of my determination in the case and which I have compar-
ed with my notes and find generally correct, I am of opinion that
the said two barrels of sugar and one barrel of molasses are not for-
feited under that section of the Act of Congress upon which they
are libelled. It does not appear that they were 'belonging or con-
signed to the Master, mate, officers or crew’ of the Schooner Dela-
ware. It is true, their being left out of the manifest, and other
circumstances in the case, make it very suspicious, that both the
captain and the claimant intended to defraud the revenue; but as I
must decide upon the charge in the libel, compared with the facts
and the law, the libel is not supported by the facts and there is,
evidence of the property in the claimant. I therefore decree that
the said two barrels of sugar and one of molasses be restored to the
claimant on his paying or securing the duties thereon.

G. Bedford.”

While Philadelphia was the centre of the national
life, the Bar of Philadelphia was the strongest in the country.
Upon the Appearance Docket in Judge Bedford’s court
are the names of William Lewis, Edward Tilghman, Jared
Ingersoll, Alexander J. Dallas, Joseph Hopkinson, Moses
Levy and Richard Peters, Jr. For a generation before
and after the establishment of the Government Lewis

1.—Dockets of District and Circuit courts 1789 to 1812; Peisch v. Ware, 4 Cranch
347; United States v. Brig Union, 4 Cranch 216; United States v. Sloop
Sally of Salem, 4 Cranch 216; United States v. Sloop Deborah of Bridge-
ton, 4 Cranch 216; United States v. Brig Eliza, 7 Cranch 113.

2.—McLane v. United States, 6 Peters 404; Bayard v. McLane, 3 Harrington 139.was the leader of the Bar. Hamilton consulted him in
preparing his great argument for the establishment of
the United States Bank. In an important case Tilghman
was able to explain Burrow’s report of a judgment of Lord
Mansfield from his note book prepared wThile attending
the Courts of Westminster as a student of the Middle
Temple. Jared Ingersoll was the greatest trial lawyer
of his day. These leaders frequently appeared in Delaware
and particularly in a long series of ejectment suits brought
in this district.1

Judge Bedford usually held the District Court in the
City Hall in Wilmington. The Wilmington Bar included
James A. Bayard, Caesar A. Rodney, James M. Broom,
Louis Me Lane, Archibald Hamilton, Nicholas Williamson
and Outerbridge Horsey. The leading practitioners were
the political rivals—James A. Bayard, the Federalist and
Caesar A. Rodney, the Republican. Bayard was prob-
ably the ablest lawyer in either House of Congress and
made the great arguments against the policies and measures
of Thomas Jefferson.2 Caesar A. Rodney was the repre-
sentative of Jefferson, an Attorney General of the United
States and the head of two important missions to South
America.3 Louis McLane frequently appeared with Bayard
in the interest of his father, the Collector of the Port.
He was Secretary of the Treasury and of State in Jackson’s
Cabinet, and twice Minister to England.

New Castle, the largest town, had the influential Bar
of the State. It included Kensey Johns, Sr., Nicholas Van
Dyke the younger, George Read, 2d, James Rogers
James R. Black. Kensey Johns, Sr. succeeded George
Read, 1st as Chief Justice in 1798 and Nicholas Ridgley

1.—Leaders of the Old Bar of Philadelphia, by Horace Binney.

2.—Huffineton’s Delaware Register, Vol. II, p. 344; History of the United States,

by Henry Adams.

3.—Life and Correspondence of George Read, p. 230.as Chancellor in 1830.1 Nicholas Van Dyke, the younger,
succeeded Bayard in the Senate.2 George Read, 2nd was
the United States Attorney from the time of Washington
until the time of Monroe.

Members of the Dover Bar practicing before Judge
Bedford were John Vining, Nicholas Ridgely, Henry M.
Ridgely, Thomas Clayton, Alexander Reynolds, William
C. Frazier, James Battle, John Fisher and Willard Hall.
The brilliant and improvident Vining was known in his
day as the “ Pet of Delaware ”.3 Nicholas Ridgely followed
Bedford as Attorney General for ten years and afterwards
was Chancellor for thirty years. Thomas Clayton was
for many years Chief Justice of Delaware and a senator
of the United States. John Fisher and Willard Hall were
the successors of Bedford as District Judge.

The so-called Sedition Act of July 14, 1798 was one
cause of the downfall of the Federalists. Samuel Chase,
an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, had presided
at the trials of Callender, Cooper and others for the
violation of this law. He was an able, overbearing
judge with an excellent record of public service before
he went upon the Bench. The Mirror of the Times and
General Advertiser published by James Wilson at Wilming-
ton criticised his conduct at these trials. Judge Chase
considered this criticism a violation of the Sedition Act.
The Circuit Court for the June term 1800 was held by
Judge Chase and Judge Bedford at New Castle. The
proceedings of the Court for June 27th are narrated in a
newspaper of that day as follows:—

1.—Life and Correspondence of George Read, p. 571.

2.—Huffington’s Delaware Register, Vol. I, p 255.

3.—Montgomery’s Reminiscences of Wilmington, p. 152“On Friday, the twenty-seventh ultimo, the Circuit Court
of the United States for the District of Delaware, commenced iits
sitting at New Castle,—Judge Chase presided. After he had
delivered a charge to the grand jury, in which religion, morality and
humanity were inculcated, and the Liberty of the Press advocated;
and after the jury under solemn oath or affirmation, had returned
to the court that they could find no bill, Judge Chase, in the stile
of a true * * * (Mem. Not to forget the Sedition Law) to the
astonishment of the greater part of those who heard him, propound-
ed the following questions to the Attorney General and to the grand
jury:

Have you found no bill, gentlemen of the jury! Mr. At-
torney, have you nothing to prefer to the grand jury?

Atty. Gen.—I believe not sir. No indictable offence has
come under my notice.

J. Ch.—Well but can’t you find something? Have you no
person in this State guilty of libelling the Government of the United
States? I am credibly informed, and report says, you have a
printer who publishes a very seditious paper in this State; his
name is—but stop—perhaps I may commit myself, and do injustice
to the man.—Have you not two printers in this State?

Atty. Gen.—Yes, sir.

J. Ch.—Very well; one of them is said to be a seditious printer,
and must be taken notice of. It is part of my duty and it shall
be attended to. This is your business also, Mr. Attorney, to search
minutely and constantly into matters of this nature. It is high
time, sir, that the spirit of sedition which prevails among many of
our printers should be checked. Can you not obtain some of
this man’s papers by tomorrow and inquire and examine and search
diligently whether he has not libelled the Government of the United
States? It is your duty, sir, and it must be done.—If you will in-
quire, the court will not discharge the jury.

Atty. Gen.—Certainly, sir, I conceive it my official duty and
will make it my business to inquire.

J. Ch.—What do you say, sir?

Atty. Gen.—I will inquire, sir, by tomorrow.

J. Ch.—Very well. Gentlemen of the jury the court cannot
discharge you I believe. Will it be inconvenient for you to attend
here tomorrow?

Foreman.—It will be very inconvenient for many of us who
are farmers. May it please your honor, harvest is at hand and is
a very busy time.

J. Ch.—It makes no odds; the court will not discharge you
under the present circumstances. You must be in court, gentle-
men, tomorrow at ten o’clock.—I am determined to have these se-
ditious printers prosecuted to the extremity of the law. The
safety and prosperity of the Government depend upon it.’T

1.—Mirror of the Times and General Advertiser, July 4, 1800.Judge Chase was impeached by the House of Rep-
resentatives and in 1805 he was tried and acquitted by
the Senate. One of the managers on the part of the House
was Caesar A. Rodney. The seventh article of impeach-
ment was based upon the conduct of Judge Chase at New
Castle above described. The interest of Judge Bedford
in the trial is shown in the following letter to Judge Chase.

Lombardy, Jany. 15th 1805

My Dear Sir:—

I am glad to find Mr. White, (Senator from Delaware) was
mistaken respecting the manner of your proceeding in your de-
fense. It certainly would have been attributed to want of firmness
in you—you have begun well, and God send you success—in the
issue—For your encouragement, it has heen whispered that Mr.
Rodney on his return from Washington, said, he did not think they
would be able to convict you—As your witnesses will be a heavy
expense to you, you will judge of the necessity of calling upon many
—Those I mentioned, were some of the Bar, and one from the grand
jury, and one from the petit jury—our old friend Dr. McMicken
is the name that you could not make out, he was on the grand
jury —S. P. Moore on the common jury—George Read is summoned,
but I can’t learn that any other is yet, and I believe will not, as no
other name, I was informed, was in the summons.

I made some inquiry in Wilmington after Carpenter, I was
told, there was a person of that name in Philadelphia, who was the

gublisher of a magazine; probably it may be him. I will write to
Leif whose paper I take, on the subject, and request him to give
you the information.

I only know what is doing at Washington, from Philadelphia
papers. I have not yet seen the circumstance you mention, of the
personal indignity, offered you by the Vice Presidt. above all others
he ought to be decent, who will probably have soon to stand a
more awful trial—The seconds in that unfortunate duel, the papers
state, have been convicted.

May God bless you, prosper you, and give you final success,
prays

Your affecionate friend and obedient servant,

G. Bedford.

Honorable S. Chase Esqr.”l

1.—Manuscript letter in Pennsylvania State Historical Society.Judge Bedford was a pillar in the social life of this
community a hundred years ago. He was President of
the Board of Trustees of the Wilmington Academy. In
soliciting financial aid for the school, he said: “The estab-
lishment of schools for the purpose of education is, on all
hands, justly acknowledged to be an object of the first
public importance. In a free country it is peculiarly
so. Under the influence of these impressions the trustees
of the Wilmington Academy appear before the public to
give a candid statement of the exertions they are making
to restore that institution to its former flourishing condition.

* * * The trustees have already appointed a committee
to inquire into the application of the sum granted by Con-
gress to the seminary. * * * The Borough of Wilmington
is perhaps as healthy as any place on the continent. Its
moral character is generally known. While sufficient
objects of recreation are furnished to conduce to the health
of the students, they are not tempted into any of the vices
so ruinous to youth.1 On January 26, 1803 he presented
a memorial to the Legislature asking that the chartered
powers of the Academy be enlarged so as to embrace a
collegiate course. This was done and he became the
President of Wilmington College. The Judge was also
President of the Lyceum of Delaware. In January, 1800
he announced that the subject for discussion on Monday at
six o’clock would be “ Whether disappointment in love or
loss of fortune be most difficult to be endured.’’2

Bedford was the leading member of the Masonic Order.
On the death of Washington he delivered a eulogy to the
Masons of Delaware. According to a contemporaneous
account “during this discourse, which was delivered with
great propriety and rendered still more impressive from
the circumstance that gave rise to it, many a tear rolled

1.—Mirror of the Times and General Advertiser for August 7, 1802.

2.—Mirror of the Times and General Advertiser for January 1, 1800.down the cheek and many a sigh sprung from the heart
of sensibility.”1 ‘‘Lady Washington” gave to Bedford
a part of Washington’s Masonic vestments.2 When the
Grand Lodge of Masons was established in Delaware in
1806 Bedford became the first Grand Master.

Bedford went on the Bench before political parties
were organized, but he undoubtedly sympathized with
Federalist Principles. In that day it frequently happened
that judges publicly avowed their political sentiments.
In 1801 Bedford presided at a political meeting where
James A. Bayard was Vice-President and a toast to
Thomas Jefferson was voted down.

In physical appearance Judge Bedford was probably
an imposing figure. In a caricature of federal officeholders
he was described as ‘‘a very large, stout, bony, brown
horse 16£ hands high.'1 Miss Montgomery says ‘‘Judge
Bedford and his lady were remarkably handsome and of
noble stature.”4 Like Chief Justice Marshall and Chan-
cellor Ridgely, he disliked French doctrines and habits of
dress. He never adopted trousers but adhered to short
breeches, knee buckles and wore a cue with powdered hair.

Intensity of feeling and frankness of utterance were
probably the salient features of Bedford’s character. He
held public office most of his life and belonged to a small
class that then regarded office as its birthright. He enjoyed
the personal acquaintance and friendship of the leaders of
the country in a stirring period of history. He had splendid
opportunities for distinguished service. He failed to
make a lasting impression, although he doubtless served
his day and generation with force and dignity.

1.—Mirror of the Times and General Advertiser for December 28, 1789.

2.—Montgomery’s Reminiscences of Wilmington 288.

3.—Mirror of the Times and General Advertiser for February 2, 1803.

4.-—Montgomery’s Reminiscences of Wilmington, p. 288.