to a particular case & whether the jurisdiction of a particular Court embraces the case. Congress has certainly power to vary a jurisdiction created by Statute—tho not by Constitution. The question here is whether there is a statutory jurisdiction. This is to be determined by the consideration whether we are to be governed by Statute in force or repealed. The Act of 1801 is repealed without a saving. This is not an ex post facto law—it is retrospective as to rights, I agree, but against no part of the Constitution. I know that in England construction has gone a great way in construction of the words of Statutes. This doctrine I explode. If the words of Statutes are clear, I am bound, tho the provision be unjust. This I hold to be the duty of an American Judge. A Judge has in this Country only to say Sic lex est scripta. Here is a Statute which gave a jurisdiction. It has been repealed. What are we to do. No power remains. The law repealed is dead & is as if it never existed. The Penns had Lord Gambier bring the claim up to Bayard when the two were negotiating the Treaty of Ghent, but Bayard claimed he had no authority to negotiate the issue, and the Penns made no further legal attempts at the claim. Garrett and Hunn trials One of the building's most famous of judicial proceedings was a series of trials which took place in 1848. Prominent abolitionists and Underground Railroad conductors Thomas Garrett (a close friend and ally of Harriet Tubman) and John Hunn were put on trial for violating the Fugitive Slave Act. The trial was presided over by U.S. Chief Justice Roger Taney. Garrett was defended by his friend U.S. Senator John Wales. The prosecution was handled by James A. Bayard Jr., son of U.S. Senator James A. Bayard Sr. (negotiator of the Treaty of Ghent) and grandson of Richard Bassett (one of the drafters of the U.S. Constitution). The trials mostly served to harden the feelings over slavery of each of the men involved. Justice Taney's instructions to the jury left little choice but a conviction: To entitle the plaintiff to a verdict in this case, it is necessary for him to have proved property of the slaves. This has not been contradicted by the defense. It only remains then to prove that they