words, that its words are to be understood in that sense in which they are generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended, that its provisions are neither to be restricted into insignificance, nor extended to objects not comprehended in them or contemplated by its framers, is to repeat what has been already said more at large, and is all that can be necessary.

Rules of Interpretation. The great chief justice regarded it his duty to respect the intention of the makers of the law in its interpretation. If there is a doubt in regard to its constitutionality, it was always given in favor of the law. He also desired a full majority of the court when such an important issue was before it. While he employed the doctrine of implied powers, as is seen, he was careful to remain within safe grounds, denying the imputation of the employment of powers not within the plain import of the law.

Cohens against Virginia. Two years after the famous Bank decision, one of the most important findings of the Supreme Court was made in the case of Cohens against Virginia. At least two questions were here decided: whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction in a case where a State was a party, and whether it could revise the decision of the highest State court. He answered both these points in the affirmative, in a course of reasoning similar to that employed in preceding cases. He made it clear that the national government was supreme in all matters that pertained to the welfare of all the people, and the States were unmolested in the exercise of powers in matters of local interest, and pertaining to the State alone. He also made it clear that the national court must exercise an appellate power over the judgments of the State courts, "which may contravene the Constitution or laws of the United States."

Principles established. Thus during the incumbency of John Marshall at the head of the Supreme Court, certain specific questions were settled:

1. There are in our system two sovereignties, the nation and the State. Each is supreme in its respective domain.

2. In case of a dispute over the power of each, or in case of a conflict of sovereignties, the nation is supreme.

3. The nation, not the State, is judge of what is the law. Whether the law is contrary to the Constitution or not, is a question for the nation.

4. The nation may revise and reverse the decision of the highest court in the State.

5. The citizen's primary allegiance is to the nation, not to the State.

6. The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, should receive a liberal interpretation, which is neither too strict nor too loose to reach the plain intent of the law.

7. Implied powers are justified when the end to be reached is specified without defining the means.

Opinions of his contemporaries. By this body of decisions. which are reported in thirty-two volumes, the national government, then only theory, became a fact. John Adams was justified in his opinion that his proudest service to the nation was in his gift to it of John Marshall. His marvelous acuteness led Webster to say, "When Judge Marshall says 'it is admitted,' I am preparing for a bomb to burst over my head and demolish all my points." His luminosity won for him the highest respect of the great legal talent who practised before the court. Story dedicated his "Commentaries on the Constitution" to him. William Pinkney, Maryland's most brilliant lawyer, declared that Marshall was born to be the chief justice of any country in which he lived. In 1884 Chief Justice Waite said, "Hardly a day now passes in the court he so dignified and adorned, without reference to some decision of his time, as establishing a principle which, from that day to this, has been accepted as undoubted law; and when at the end of his long and eminent career he laid down his life, he and those who so ably assisted him in his great work had the right to say that the judicial power of the United States had been carefully preserved, and wisely administered."

Marshall in the Burr case. During his long career his equable temper and judicial mind served him in winning a reputation for fairness and impartiality rarely met with in the work of jurisprudence. Perhaps one of the greatest strains he underwent was the case in which Burr was charged for treason. There was little doubt of the guilt of this man. But the indictment under which he was tried alleged the act of treason on the island of Blennerhassett, at a time when it was admitted that Burr was not present. In view of this the law of evidence would exclude all evidence of Burr's doings elsewhere than on the island, unless he was proved constructively present. This could not be done. Hence it was the duty of the presiding judge to exclude that part of the testimony which concerned Burr, leading up to the time and place alleged in the indictment. To rule this out meant virtually to find for the defendant. This was known to be in direct opposition to the wishes of President Jefferson, who was the real prosecutor in the suit, as it was also averse to the wishes of the court. But he chose to act in accordance with the law and take the consequences. He said, "That this court dares not usurp power is most true. That this court does not shrink from duty is not less true. No man is desirous of placing himself in a disagreeable situation. No man is desirous of becoming the subject of calumny. No man, might he let the bitter cup pass from him without reproach, would drain it to the bottom. But if he has no choice in the case, if there is no alternative presented to him but a dereliction of duty or the opprobrium of those who are denominated the world, he merits the contempt as well as the indignation of his country, who can hesitate which to embrace."

His place in history. This heroic character who could afford to invite the criticism of the world rather than transgress the laws of equity, was admirably fitted to cement the Union and thus to reinforce the Constitution as the instrument for the establishment of justice, common defense, domestic tran

quillity, general welfare, and the security of the blessings of liberty among the people of his country. During the first forty years of constitutional existence, nationality owes more to John Marshall than the publicist is free to admit.

CHAPTER VI

A NEW ALIGNMENT OF PARTIES

Fatality of negation only. The ease with which Jefferson and Madison adopted the loose construction theory of constitutional interpretation and the success attending their administrations were complete answers to the charges of the Federalists of reckless radicalism and flagrant incompetency of the party in power. The fatal policy of negation which led the Federalists, the avowed exponents of loose construction, to adopt the theory of strict construction in order to make opposition to the party which had displaced them was a sure symptom of ultimate disruption. Any political party can better withstand a change of policy than a mere campaign of negation. To oppose what the responsible head proposes, never enlists the admiration of the conservative voter, who holds in his hands the issue in a campaign. However frank a leader may be in his change of face, the public must be convinced that the change is due to a change of conditions, and not suggested by a spirit of negation born of the desire to oppose simply for opposition's sake.

Progress of Federalist disintegration. This constant opposition of the Federalists to every measure proposed by the Administration, led them to commit blunders, until they drove from their ranks many of their stanchest supporters and left the party a hopeless minority. Feeble attempts were made to maintain an organization. The party which had controlled the government for the first twelve years of its exist