as if sensible of the indecorum which he was committing, added "that it might be assuming too much to mention the name of this person, but it becomes your duty, gentlemen, to inquire diligently into this matter," or words to that effect[...] Chase defended himself by stating that if he was aware of a federal law having been broken, it was his duty to bring it to the attention of the court. The Senate found Chase not guilty on each count of impeachment. Though the attempt to remove Chase was unsuccessful, Rodney fared well, as he was considered the strongest speaker of the managers. The Virginia Law Register stated, "The Managers were entirely overmatched, and with the exception of Rodney, of Delaware, won no praise." He gave one of the closing arguments of the trial, in which he stated, "Give any human being judicial power for life, and annex to the exercise of it the kingly maxim 'that he can do no wrong,' you may call him a judge or justice, no matter what is the appellation, and you transform him into a despot." Two years later, President Thomas Jefferson appointed Rodney U.S. Attorney General. Penn's heirs In 1801, John and Richard Penn, heirs of William, brought a federal lawsuit seeking compensation for the uncultivated lands of Delaware which they claimed they were entitled to as former proprietors. The damages they sought were allowed under the Midnight Judges Act signed into law by President John Adams before the end of his term. The Act was repealed in 1802. In 1804, the case was heard in a trial at the New Castle Court House. The case was notable for the prominence of the legal teams assembled on each side. The Penns were represented by Jared Ingersoll, Joseph McKean (son of Thomas), and Moses Levy; the state of Delaware was represented by Caesar A. Rodney, James A. Bayard Sr., George Read Jr., and state Attorney General Nicholas Van Dyke Jr. Presiding over the case was U.S. Judge Gunning Bedford Jr. and Justice Samuel Chase. After hearing the legal arguments from each side, Chase determined that the repeal of the 1801 Act left the court without authority to decide the case, and he dismissed it with a memorable opinion: The question is whether this Court now have a jurisdiction, not whether they have had. The question is very different whether Judicial power extends