FOOTNOTES:
[1269] Marshall to his wife, March 12, 1826, MS.
[1270] Nevertheless he watched the course of politics closely. For instance: immediately after the House had elected John Quincy Adams to the Presidency, Marshall writes his brother a letter full of political gossip. He is surprised that Adams was chosen on the first ballot; many think Kremer's letter attacking Clay caused this unexpectedly quick decision, since it "was & is thought a sheer calumny; & the resentment of Clay's friends probably determined some of the western members who were hesitating. It is supposed to have had some influence elsewhere. The vote of New York was not decided five minutes before the ballots were taken."
Marshall tells his brother about Cabinet rumors—Crawford has refused the Treasury and Clay has been offered the office of Secretary of State. "It is meer [sic] common rumor" that Clay will accept. "Mr. Adams will undoubtedly wish to strengthen himself in the west," and Clay is strong in that section unless Kremer's letter has weakened him. The Chief Justice at first thought it had, but "on reflection" doubts whether it will "make any difference." (Marshall to his brother, Feb. 14, 1825, MS.) Marshall here refers to the letter of George Kremer, a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania. Kremer wrote an anonymous letter to the Columbian Observer in which he asserted that Clay had agreed to deliver votes to Adams as the price of Clay's appointment to the office of Secretary of State. After much bluster, Kremer admitted that he had no evidence whatever to support his charge; yet his accusation permanently besmirched Clay's reputation. (For an account of the Kremer incident see Sargent, i, 67-74, 123-24.)
Out of the Kremer letter grew a distrust of Clay which he never really lived down. Some time later, John Randolph seized an opportunity to call the relation between President Adams and his Secretary of State "the coalition of Blifil and Black George—the combination, unheard of till then, of the Puritan with the blackleg." The bloodless, but not the less real duel, that followed, ended this quarrel, though the unjust charges never quite died out. (Schurz: Henry Clay, i, 273-74.)
[1271] Baltimore Marylander, March 22, 1828.
[1272] Enquirer, April 4, 1828.
[1273] Meaning Jackson. Clay to Marshall, April 8, 1828, MS.
[1274] Marshall to Story, May 1, 1828, Proceedings, Mass. Hist. Soc. 2d Series, xiv, 336-37.
[1275] See chap. i of this volume.
[1276] Thomas, whose wife died Feb. 2, 1829. (Paxton, 92.)
[1277] Marshall to his wife, March 5 [1829], MS.
[1278] Same to same, Feb. 1, 1829, MS.
[1279] Jacquelin B. Harvie, who married Marshall's daughter, Mary.
[1280] Marshall to his wife, March 5 [1829], MS.
[1281] Marshall to Story, June 11, 1829, Proceedings, Mass. Hist. Soc. 2d Series, xiv, 338-39.
[1282] See vol. i, 216-17, of this work.
[1283] Jefferson to Kercheval, July 12, 1816, Works: Ford, xii, 3-15.
[1284] Same to same, Oct. 8, 1816, ib. footnote to 17.
[1285] At the time of the convention the eastern part of the State paid, on the average, more than three times as much in taxes per acre as the west. The extremes were startling—the trans-Alleghany section (West Virginia) paid only 92 cents for every $8.43 paid by the Tidewater. (Proceedings and Debates of the Virginia State Convention of 1829-30, 214, 258, 660-61.)
[1286] Marshall to Story, July 3, 1829, Proceedings, Mass. Hist. Soc. 2d Series, xiv, 340-41.
[1287] Pickering to Marshall, Dec. 26, 1828, Pickering MSS. Mass. Hist. Soc.; see also Story, i, 386-96.
[1288] Marshall to Mercer, April 7, 1827, Chamberlain MSS. Boston Pub. Lib.
[1289] Lincoln to Greeley, Aug. 22, 1862, Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln: Nicolay and Hay, ii, 227-28.
[1290] Marshall to Pickering, March 20, 1826, Proceedings, Mass. Hist. Soc. 2d Series, xiv, 321.
[1291] Fifteenth Annual Report, Proceedings, American Colonization Society. The abolitionists, later, mercilessly attacked the Colonization Society. (See Wilson: Rise of the Slave Power, i, 208 et seq.)
[1292] Fourteenth Annual Report, Proceedings, American Colonization Society.
[1293] His wife's illness. She died soon afterwards. See infra, 524-25.
[1294] Marshall to Gurley, Dec. 14, 1831, Fifteenth Annual Report, Proceedings, American Colonization Society, pp. vi-viii.
In a letter even less emotional than Marshall's, Madison favored the same plan. (Ib. pp. v, vi.) Lafayette, with his unfailing floridity, says that he is "proud ... of the honor of being one of the Vice Presidents of the Society," and that "the progressing state of our Liberia establishment is ... a source of enjoyment, and the most lively interest" to him. (Ib. p. v.)
At the time of his death, Marshall was President of the Virginia branch of the Society, and his ancient enemy, John Tyler, who succeeded him in that office, paid a remarkable tribute to the goodness and greatness of the man he had so long opposed. (Tyler: Tyler, i, 567-68.)
[1295] 10 Wheaton, 114.
[1296] Ib. 115. Marshall delivered this opinion March 15, 1825.
[1297] Ib. 114.
[1298] Ib. 118-19.
[1299] Ib. 122-23.
[1300] 2 Peters, 150-56.
[1301] Marshall to Greenhow, Oct. 17, 1809, MSS. "Judges and Eminent Lawyers," Mass. Hist. Soc.
[1302] See supra, 209-18, of this volume.
[1303] 12 Wheaton, 214 et seq. John Saunders, a citizen of Kentucky, sued George M. Ogden, a citizen of Louisiana, on bills of exchange which Ogden, then a citizen of New York, had accepted in 1806, but which were protested for non-payment. The defendant pleaded a discharge granted by a New York court under the insolvent law of that State enacted in 1801. (Ib.) On the manuscript records of the Supreme Court, Saunders is spelled Sanders. After the case was filed, the death of Ogden was suggested, and his executors, Charles Harrod and Francis B. Ogden, were substituted.
[1304] Washington, Johnson, Thompson, and Trimble each delivered long opinions supporting this view. (12 Wheaton, 254-331, 358-369.)
[1305] Ib. 334.
[1306] Ib. 335.
[1307] Ib. 337.
[1308] Ib. 356.
[1309] Ib. 357.
[1310] Story and Duval concurred with Marshall.
[1311] 12 Wheaton, 65-90.
[1312] Webster to Biddle, Feb. 20, 1827, Writings and Speeches of Webster: (Nat. ed.) xvi, 140.
[1313] 12 Wheaton, 90-116.
[1314] Grigsby: Virginia Convention of 1829-30; and see Ambler: Sectionalism in Virginia, 145. Chapter v of Professor Ambler's book is devoted exclusively to the convention. Also see preface to Debates Va. Conv. iii; and see Dodd, in American Journal of Sociology, xxvi, no. 6, 735 et seq.; and Anderson, 229-36.
[1315] Debates, Va. Conv. 23.
[1316] Ib. 25.
[1317] Ib. 25-31.
[1318] Statement of Marshall. (Ib. 872.)
[1319] Debates, Va. Conv. 33.
[1320] See supra, 146, 147.
[1321] See Giles's speech, Debates, Va. Conv. 604-05.
[1322] See Ambler: Sectionalism in Virginia, 139.
[1323] See vol. ii, 62-69, of this work.
[1324] Serious abuses sprang up, however. In the convention, William Naylor of Hampshire County charged that the office of sheriff was sold to the highest bidder, sometimes at public auction. (Debates, Va. Conv. 486; and see Anderson, 229.)
[1325] See Marshall's defense of the County Court system, infra, 491.
[1326] See vol. i, 302, of this work.
[1327] For example, Thomas R. Joynes of Accomack County, who earnestly opposed Marshall in the Judiciary debate, said that no man felt "more respect" than he for Marshall's opinions which are justly esteemed "not only in this Convention, but throughout the United States." (Debates, Va. Conv. 505.) Randolph spoke of "the very great weight" which Marshall had in the convention, in Virginia, and throughout the Nation. (Ib. 500.) Thomas M. Bayly of Accomack County, while utterly disagreeing with the Chief Justice on the County Court system, declared that Marshall, "as a lawyer and Judge, is without a rival." (Ib. 510.) Richard H. Henderson of Loudoun County called the Chief Justice his "political father" whose lessons he delighted to follow, and upon whose "wisdom, ... virtue, ... prudence" he implicitly relied. (Henderson's statement as repeated by Benjamin W. Leigh, ib. 544.) Charles F. Mercer of the same county "expressed toward Judge Marshall a filial respect and veneration not surpassed by the ties which had bound him to a natural parent." (Ib. 563.) Such are examples of the expressions toward Marshall throughout the prolonged sessions of the convention.
[1328] See vol. iii, chap, ii, of this work.
[1329] Debates, Va. Conv. 871-72.
[1330] Ib. 872-74.
[1331] Debates, Va. Conv. 873.
[1332] See infra, 493-501.
[1333] Accordingly the following provision was inserted into the Constitution: "No law abolishing any court shall be construed to deprive a Judge thereof of his office, unless two-thirds of the members of each House present concur in the passing thereof; but the Legislature may assign other Judicial duties to the Judges of courts abolished by any law enacted by less than two-thirds of the members of each House present." (Article v, Section 2, Constitution of Virginia, 1830.)
[1334] Debates, Va. Conv. 505.
[1335] Debates, Va. Conv. 509.
[1336] Ib. 524, 530, 531, 533, 534.
[1337] Ib. 604-05.
[1338] Ib. 605. The provision as it finally appeared in the constitution was that these "appointments shall be made by the Governor, on the recommendation of the respective County Courts." (Article v, Section 7, Constitution of Virginia, 1830.)
[1339] Debates, Va. Conv. 615-17.
[1340] See vol. iii, chap. ii, of this work.
[1341] Debates, Va. Conv. 619.
[1342] Ib. 618-19.
[1343] Ib. 726.
[1344] See vol. iii, chap. ii, of this work.
[1345] Debates, Va. Conv. 731.
[1346] Debates, Va. Conv. 726-27.
[1347] Debates, Va. Conv. 727-29.
[1348] Debates, Va. Conv. 729-30.
[1349] See especially the speech of Benjamin Watkins Leigh, ib. 733-37.
[1350] See ib. for ayes and noes, 740, 741, 742, 744, 748.
[1351] Ib. 764.
[1352] Debates, Va. Conv. 767.
[1353] Ib. 880.
[1354] Compare Marshall's report (ib. 33) with Article v of the constitution (ib. 901-02; and see supra, 491, note 2.)
[1355] Contrast Marshall's resolutions (Debates, Va. Conv. 39-40), which expressed the conservative stand, with those of William H. Fitzhugh of Fairfax County (ib. 41-42), of Samuel Clayton of Campbell County (ib. 42), of Charles S. Morgan of Monongalia (ib. 43-44), and of Alexander Campbell of Brooke County (ib. 45-46), which state the views of the radicals.
[1356] See, for instance, the speech of John R. Cooke of Frederick County for the radicals (Debates, Va. Conv. 54-65), of Abel P. Upshur of Northampton for the conservatives (ib. 65-79), of Philip Doddridge of Brooke County for the radicals (ib. 79-89), of Philip P. Barbour of Orange County for the conservatives (ib. 90-98), and especially the speeches of Benjamin Watkins Leigh for the conservatives (ib. 151-74, 544-48). Indeed, the student cannot well afford to omit any one of the addresses in this remarkable contest.
[1357] It is at this point that we see the reason for Jefferson's alarm thirteen years before the convention was called. (See supra, 469.)
[1358] Debates, Va. Conv. 497-500.
[1359] Debates, Va. Conv. 561-62.
[1360] Constitution of Virginia, 1830, Article iii, Sections 1 and 2.
[1361] Ib. Article iii, Section 14.
[1362] See supra, 469.
[1363] See next chapter.
[1364] March 12, 1830.
[1365] 4 Peters, 432.
[1366] 4 Peters, 432.
[1367] Ib. 433.
[1368] Ib. 434.
[1369] 4 Peters, 434-36.
[1370] Ib. 437.
[1371] Ib. 420.
[1372] Ib. 438.
[1373] See 552-58.
[1374] 4 Peters, 438-44.
[1375] Ib. 445-50.
[1376] Ib. 458.
[1377] 4 Peters, 464.
[1378] Story to Ticknor, Jan. 22, 1831, Story, ii, 49. Nevertheless Story did not despair. "It is now whispered, that the demonstrations of public opinion are so strong, that the majority [of the Judiciary Committee] will conclude not to present their report." (Ib.)
[1379] Marshall to Story, Oct. 15, 1830, Proceedings, Mass. Hist. Soc. 2d Series, xiv, 342.
[1380] See infra, 584.
[1381] Debates, 21st Cong. 2d Sess. 532.
[1382] Ib. 535.
[1383] Ib. 534.
[1384] Ib. 659.
[1385] Ib. 665.
[1386] Debates, 21st Cong. 2d Sess. 620-21.
[1387] Ib. 731, 748; and see vol. i, 454-55, of this work.
[1388] Debates, 21st Cong. 2d Sess. 739.
[1389] Debates, 21st Cong. 2d Sess. 542.
This was the last formal attempt, but one, made in Congress during Marshall's lifetime, to impair the efficiency of National courts. The final attack was made by Joseph Lecompte, a Representative from Kentucky, who on January 27, 1832, offered a resolution instructing the Judiciary Committee to "inquire into the expediency of amending the constitution ... so that the judges of the Supreme Court, and of the inferior courts, shall hold their offices for a limited term of years." On February 24, the House, by a vote of 141 to 27, refused to consider Lecompte's resolution, ignoring his plea to be allowed to explain it. (Debates, 22d Cong. 1st Sess. 1856-57.) So summary and brusque—almost contemptuous—was the rejection of Lecompte's proposal, as almost to suggest that personal feeling was an element in the action taken by the House.