was found in his own handwriting upon loose sheets of paper. The two together occupy over four hundred pages of his Works and are the source in which is to be found the best statement of his political theory. It is unnecessary here to analyze it, as it contains nothing that had not been noted in the various documents here examined. It is, however, conclusive that his ripest thought was not upon slavery, but upon political theory, under which, when once recognized, slavery would be secure.

His last speech. In his last great speech in the Senate, read by his friend Senator Mason of Virginia, which was written upon the slave issue, he still professed great attachment to the Union. He did not endorse Secession, but said there was a conviction in the South that they were left to the alternative of choosing between abolition and Secession, and he warned against further continuing the agitation. His mistake was in believing that if Congress would refuse to entertain any measures touching the sensitive issue, the agitation would cease; and therefore if the Union was endangered the fault was not with the South, but with the government which permitted the agitation to continue. During all these years of agitation his effort to commit the Democratic party to his extreme views was futile. At the very threshold he was met by President Jackson, the head of his party, as well as the head of the nation. However, by 1840, he saw this party adopt a platform committed against a protective tariff, internal improvements, Federal assumption of State debts, and a declaration that the government had no constitutional authority to interfere or control the domestic institution of the several States. These resolutions were incorporated in the party's platforms of 1844 and 1848.

Calhoun's passion for local self-government led him to the precipice of State interposition against the enforcement of an enactment of the general government, only one step removed from the abyss of disunion.

CHAPTER XI

DANIEL WEBSTER, THE EXPONENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY

Webster as a Partizan. Among the brilliant names that adorn our national history from 1820 to 1850, that of Daniel Webster has particular significance. He had attracted much attention by brilliant addresses upon the War of 1812 and had come into great favor before the end of the Virginia dynasty which closed with the administration of Monroe in 1825. His début in public life was as a radical partizan of the Federalist persuasion. Although extremely national in his theory, his party spirit led him to withhold support of the Administration in measures of far-reaching nationality. When later the Virginia dynasty gave way to the second Adams administration, which continued the policy of nationality, Webster, who had assisted in the choice of Adams over Jackson, valiantly supported his chief in his measures. This afforded him opportunity to give his talents full range with no violence to his political theory.

Transitional period. This is the period in which history records the transition of statesmen; when Calhoun was transformed from a Protectionist into a Free-trader, and Webster from a Free-trader into a Protectionist. This apparent inconsistency has a rational explanation more favorable to Webster than to Calhoun. The latter admitted that he had favored the protective system and had ridiculed the constitutional objections in 1816, but he explains that he did it in the enthu

siasm of youth and at a time when he had made no preparation. On the other hand, Webster's opposition to the protective system in 1816 was not put upon a constitutional basis, but upon expediency. He did not argue that the system could not, but that it should not be adopted. Then later when it became the policy of the government, against his influence, and many industries had been established upon the protective schedule, many of which were in his own part of the country, he deferred to the majority

and became finally a great advocate of the "American system," second only to Clay. This change did not necessitate a change of political theory.

DANIEL WEBSTER

Extent of change. The change of conditions appertaining to a rapidly growing nation modified Webster's views of the tariff as a political measure, but did not modify his interpretation of the Constitution. However, he consistently held that a tariff for the sake of protection only, with no reference to revenue, was not warranted by the Constitution. In this respect he did not go to the extent of Hamilton's theory, which would justify the tariff upon the ground of the general welfare clause of the Constitution. While Webster stopped short of the extreme limit of Hamiltonian interpretation, Calhoun went beyond the Jeffersonian interpretation, so that the difference between Webster and Calhoun measured about the same as that between Hamilton and Jefferson. If it can be asserted that Calhoun had a passion for local self-government which extended to State Sovereignty, it can also be said that

Webster had a passion for Union equivalent to constitutional supremacy.

Influence of New England upon him. The mind naturally seeks the causes of things. It is interesting to ascertain the reasons for specific facts when they stand in contrast. Why did Webster embrace the broad construction theory? The atmosphere in which he was bred was surcharged with Federalism. In the early days most of the respectability, wealth and talent were found in the ranks of the Federalists. They had taken their name (which is a misnomer, they should have been called Nationalists) from their valiant attachment to the new Constitution. Ebenezer Webster, the father of Daniel, was a Federalist of the Federalists. He had placed into the hands of his son at the early age of eight a handkerchief upon which was printed in full the Constitution of the United States. The devotion of the New England home to an early introduction to fundamental principles may explain the passionate devotion of this son for the instrument, which in the minds of many a citizen was the cure-all of the numerous evils during the years immediately following the War for Independence. In this home religion took first place, patriotism second. The Bible was in the hands of the boy first, then the Constitution.

Source of his theory. While in college his mental activity was aroused by the discussion of the questions of the day. This period of life was spent during great political excitement. Born at the close of the war, the year before the treaty of Paris was signed, his minority was passed in a time of great concern for the welfare of the new government. The character of his mind was constructive, rather than destructive. Its tendency was positive, not negative. This talent, assisted by his college training, eminently fitted him for the advocate. The New England town meeting furnished him the arena for the exercise of his talents. Much was made over the youth who gave promise. In that section of the country grave discussions upon various questions were the order of the

day. The pulpit was the important school, and the preacher the real teacher. Public occasions where the great man was exhibited were numerous. Upon such an occasion Webster was introduced to his countrymen. From an early age his study took him to the history of his country. All his public addresses drew from this source. Soon the Constitution became his text; the Union, his theme; the great men of his country, his inspiration. Later, the Supreme Court of the United States became his school, with John Marshall his teacher, and the "Federalist " his chief text-book.

Webster in the Supreme Court. His first important case in the Supreme Court, which was argued soon after he entered Congress was between citizens of the same State holding property in different States, and involved a constitutional question of jurisdiction of the court. He took the broad construction view and ably contended that the Constitution extended jurisdiction of the court to citizens, not only of the original States to the compact, but to the citizens of all the States admitted to the Union. His argument in this case serves as a key to his interpretation of the document later in life.

The Dartmouth College case. In 1818 he achieved wide fame by his masterful argument in the Dartmouth College case. For our purpose it is only necessary to say that this case grew out of a law enacted by the legislature of New Hampshire which changed the charter of Dartmouth College without consulting the trustees under the charter. The trustees entered court in behalf of the charter as it was before the modification. The issue turned upon the constitutionality of the law under which the change was made. The court sustained the law. From the highest court in the State the case was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. Webster appeared for the trustees to argue the unconstitutionality of the law. His contention was that a charter is a contract, and creates contractual relations from which obli