 17 These labors were great and took up most of his time. They included sending information to his countrymen of all that was going on of importance in the realms of science, art, and literature, giving advice and assistance to the unfortunate, sending seeds and machines and new inventions to America, and acquaint himself with all improvements in agriculture, especially in the culture of rice. He traveled extensively in most of the countries of Europe, always with his eyes open to learn something useful, one result of which was to deepen his disgust with the institutions of the old world, and increase his admiration for those of his own country. He doubtless attached to much importance to the political systems of Europe in producing the degradation he saw among the various peoples, even as he too impulsively considered republicanism the source of all good in governments. He was on pleasant terms with a different diplomatic corps, and lived in the easy and profuse style of Virginia planters, giving few grand dinners but dispensing a generous hospitality to French visitors as well as to all Americans who called upon him. The letters he wrote were innumerable. No public man ever left to posterity more of the results of his observations and thought. Interesting himself in everything and everybody, and freely communicating his ideas in correspondence, he had a wide influence while living, and his ideas have been suggestive and fruitful to thoughtful students of the public interest ever since. After five years residence in France he returned home, a much more intelligent and cultivated man than when he arrived in Paris, which never lost its charm for him, in spite of its political convulsions, its irreligion, and its social inequality. He came back to Monticello as on a visit only, expecting to return to his post, but another destiny awaited him. Washington required his services in the first cabinet as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a part for which his diplomatic career had admirably qualified him, as well as his general abilities. The seat of government was then at New York, and Jefferson occupied a house in Maiden Lane, where Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, lived in Pine Street. Jefferson's salary was $3,500 a year, $500 more than Hamilton received, but it is not to be supposed that either lived on his official income. The population of the city was then but $35,000, and only a few families, at the head of which were the Skylers, the Livingstons, the Van Rensseliers, and the Morrises, constituted what is called society, which was much more ceremonious than at the present day, and more exclusive. All the great officers of the new government were aristocratic and stately, even inaccessible, except Jefferson. And many of the fashions, titles, and ceremonies of European courts were kept up. The factotum of the President signed himself as steward of the household, while Washington himself rode to church in a city coach and six attended by outriders. Great functionaries were called most honorable, and their wives were addressed as Lady so-and-so. The most confidential ministers dared not assume any familiarity with the President. He was not addressed as Mr. President but as Your Excellency, and even that title was too democratic for the taste of John Adams, who thought it lowered the President to the level of a governor of Bermuda, or one of his own secretaries. Only four men constituted the Cabinet of Washington, but the public business was inconsiderable compared with these times, and Jefferson in the State Department had only four clerks under him. Still, he was a very busy man, as many questions of importance had to be settled. We are in a wilderness without a footstep to guide us, wrote Madison to Jefferson in reference to Congress. And it applied to the executive government as well as to Congress. Neither the executive nor the legislature had precedents to guide them, and everything was in a tangle. There was scarcely any money in the country, and still less in the Treasury. Even the President, one of the richest men in the country, if not the richest, had to raise money at two percent a month to enable his steward of the household to pay his grocer's bills, and all the members of his Cabinet had to sacrifice their private interests in accepting their new positions. The head of a department was not so great a personage in reality as at the present day, and yet very few men were capable of performing the duties of their position. Probably Alexander Hamilton was the only man in the country then fit to be Secretary of the Treasury, and Jefferson the only man available to be Secretary of State, since Adams was in the vice presidential chair. And these two men, Washington was obliged to retain, in spite of their mutual hostilities and total disagreement on almost every subject presented to their consideration. In nothing were the patients, the patriotism and the magnanimity of Washington more apparent than in his treatment of these two rival statesmen, perpetually striving to conciliate them, hopelessly attempting to mix oil with water, the one an aristocratic financier who saw national prosperity in banks and money and central power, the other a democratic land owner who looked upon agriculture as the highest interest and universal suffrage as the only safe policy for a republic. Between the theories of these rivals, Washington had to steer the ship of state, originating nothing himself, yet singularly clear in his judgment, both of men and measures. He was governed equally by the advice of both since they worked in different spheres and were not rivals in the sense that Burr and Jefferson were, that is, leaders in the same party and competitors for the same office. In regard to the labors and services of Jefferson in the Department of State, he was cautious, conciliatory and peace loving, neither a fanatic nor an enthusiast, enlightened by 25 years of discussion on the principles of law and government and a practical businessman. It required all his tact to prevent entangling foreign alliances and getting into hot water with both France and England, for neither power had any respect for the new Commonwealth and each seemed inclined to take all the advantage it could of American weakness and inexperience. They were constantly guilty of such offenses as the impressment of our seamen, paper blockades, haughty dictation, and insolent treatment of our envoys, having an eye all the while to the future dismemberment of the states, and the rich slices of territory both were likely to acquire in the south and west. At that time there was no navy, no army to speak of, and no surplus revenue. There were irritating questions to be settled with England about boundaries and the occupation of military posts which she had agreed to evacuate. There were British intrigues with Indians in the interior to make disturbance, while on the borders the fur trade and fisheries were unsettled. There were debts to be paid from American to English merchants which were disputed, and treaties to be made, involving all the unsettled principles of political economy, as insoluble apparently today as they were one hundred years ago. There were unjust restrictions on American commerce of the most irritating nature, for American vessels were still excluded from west India ports, and only such products were admitted as could not be dispensed with. Such articles as whale oil, salt fish, salt provisions, and grain itself could not be exported to any town in England. In France a new spirit seemed to animate the government against America, a disposition to seize everything that was possible and to dictate in matters with which they had no concern. Even in relation to our own internal affairs, as in the instructions, furnished to Jeanette whose unscrupulous audacity and meddling intrigues at last exhausted the patience of both Washington and Jefferson. But the most important thing that happened of historical interest when Jefferson was Secretary of State was the origination of the Republican or Democratic Party, as it was afterwards called, in opposition to the federal party led by Hamilton, Jay, and Governor Morris. Of this new party Jefferson was the undisputed founder and life. He fancied he saw in the measure of the federal leaders a systematic attempt to assimilate American institutions as far as possible to those of Great Britain. He looked upon Hamilton as a royalist at heart and upon his bank with other financial arrangements only as an engine to control votes and centralized power at the expense of the states. He entered into the arena of controversial politics, wrote for the newspapers, appealed to democratic passions, and set in motion a network of party machinery to influence the votes of the people for seeing the future triumph of his principles. He pulled political wires with as much adroitness and effect as Van Buren in aftertimes so that the statesman was lost in the politician. But Jefferson was not a vulgar, a selfish, or a scheming politician. Though ambitious for the presidency, in his heart he preferred the quiet of Monticello to any elevation to which the people could raise him. What he desired supremely was the triumph of democratic principles, since he saw in this triumph the welfare of the country, the interest of the many against the ascendancy of the few, the real reign of the people, instead of the reign of a aristocracy of money or birth. Believing that the people knew or ought to know their own interests, he was willing to entrust them with unlimited political power. The Federalist leaders saw in the ascendancy of the people the triumphs of demagogy, the ignoring of experiencing government, the reign of passions, unenlightened measures leading to financial and political ruin, and would therefore restrict the privilege, or as some would say, the right, of suffrage. In such a war of principles the most bitter animosities were to be expected, and there has never been a time when such fierce party contests disgrace the country as at the close of Washington's administration, if we accept the animosities attending the election of General Jackson. It was really a war between aristocrats and plebeians, as in ancient Rome, and as at Rome, every succeeding battle ended in the increase of power among the democracy. At the close of the administration of President Adams, the Federal Party was destroyed forever. It is useless to speculate as to which party was in the right. Probably both parties were right in some things and wrong in others. The worth of a strong government in critical times has been proved by the wholesome action of such an autocrat as Jackson in the nullification troubles with South Carolina, and the successful maintenance of the Union by the power-assuming Congress during the rebellion. While Jackson's autocracy in general, and the centralizing tendency of congressional legislation since 1865, are instances of the complications likely to arise from too strong a government in a country where the people are the final source of power. The value of universal suffrage, the logical result of Jefferson's view of government, is still an open question, especially in cities. But whether good or bad in its ultimate results, the victory was decisive on the part of the democracy, whose main principle of popular sovereignty has become the established law of the land and will probably continue to rule as long as American institutions last. The questions since opened have been in regard to slavery, in ways which Jefferson never dreamed of, the comparative power of the North and South, matters of finance, tariffs, and internal improvements, involving the deepest problems of political economy, education, and constitutional law. And as time moves on, new questions will arise to puzzle the profoundist intellects, but the question of the ascendancy of the people is settled beyond all human calculations. And it is in this matter especially that Jefferson left his mark on the institutions of his country, as the champion of democracy, rather than as the champion of the abstract rights of man, which he and Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams had asserted, in opposition to the tyranny of Great Britain and her treatment of the colonies. And here he went beyond Puritan, New England, which sought the ascendancy of the wisest and the best, when the aristocracy of intellect and virtue should bear sway instead of the unenlightened masses. Historians talk about the aristocracy of the southern planters, but this was an offshoot of the aristocracy of feudalism, the dominion of favored classes over the enslaved, the poor, and the miserable. New England aristocracy was the rule of the wisest and the best, extending to the remotest hamlets, in which people discuss the elemental principles of Magna Carta and the liberties of Saxonyoman. This was the aristocracy which had for its defenders such men as the Adamses, the Shermans, and the Langdons. Something new in the history of governments and empires, which was really subverted by the doctrines of Rousseau and the leaders of the French Revolution, whom Jefferson admired and followed. Jefferson, however, practically believed in the aristocracy of mind and gave his preference to men of learning and refinement, rather than to men of wealth and rank. He was a Democrat only in the recognition of the people as the source of future political power, and hence in the belief of the ultimate triumph of the Democratic Party, which it was his work to organize and lead. For seeing how dangerous the triumph of a vulgar and ignorant mob could be, he tried to provide for educating the people on the same principle that we would today educate the colored race. The great hobby of his life was education. He thus spent the best part of his latter years in founding and directing the University of Virginia, including a plan for popular education as well. To all schemes of education he lent a willing ear, but it was the last thing which aristocratic southern planters desired, the elevation of the poor whites or political equality. Though a planter, Jefferson was more in sympathy with new England ideas as to the intellectual improvement of the people and its relation to universal suffrage, then with the southern gentleman with whom he associated. Hamilton did not so much care for the education of the people as he did for the ascendancy of those who were already educated, especially if wealthy. Property in his eyes had great consideration, as with all the influential magnates of the North. Jefferson thought more of men than of their surroundings, and thus became popular with ordinary people in a lower stratum of social life. Hamilton was popular only with the rich, the learned, and the powerful, and stood no chance in the race with Jefferson for popular favor, wherever universal suffrage was established. Any more than did John Adams, whose ideas concerning social distinctions and the ascendancy of learning and virtue in matters of government were decidedly aristocratic. It is hard to say whether Jefferson or Hamilton was the wiser in his political theories, nor is it certain which was the more astute and far-reaching in his calculations as to the future ascendancy of political parties. Down to the Civil War, the Democrats had things largely their own way. Since then, the Republican Party, lineal descendant of the Federals, through the Whigs, have borne sway until within very recent years, when there has developed a strong reaction against the centralizing tendency compacted by the rallying of the people about the government to resist disunion in 1860 to 65. Jefferson became vice president on the final retirement of Washington to private life in 1797, when Adams was made president. The vice presidency was a position of dignity rather than of power, and not so much desired by ambitious men as the office of governor in a great state. What took place of importance in the political field during the presidency of Adams has already been treated. As vice president, Jefferson had but little to do officially, but he was as busy as ever with his pen and in pulling political wires, especially in doing all he could to obstruct legislation along the lines laid down by the federal leaders. Of course, like other leaders, he was aiming at the presidency, and I think he was the only man in our history who ever reached this high office by persistent personal efforts to secure it. Burr failed, in spite of his great abilities, as well as Hamilton, Calhoun, Clay, Benton, Webster, Douglas, Seward, and Blaine. All the later presidents have been men who, when nominated as candidates for the presidency, were comparatively unknown and unimportant in the eyes of the nation. Selected not for abilities, but as the most available candidates, although some of them proved to be men of greater talent and fitness than was generally supposed. The people accepted them, but did not select them any more than Saul and David were chosen by the people of Israel. Political leaders selected them for party purposes, and rather because they were unknown than because they were known. While greater men, who had the national eye upon them for services and abilities, had created too many enemies, secret or open, for successful competition. An English member of Parliament, of transcendent talent, if superior to all other members for eloquence, wisdom, and tact, is pretty certain of climbing to the premiership, like canning, peal, disraeli, and Gladstone. Probably no American, for a long time to come, can reasonably hope to reach the presidency because he has ambitiously and persistently labored for it, whatever maybe his merits or services. In a country of wide extent, like the United States, where the representatives of the people and the states in Congress are the real rulers, perhaps this is well. But even Jefferson did not inordinately seek or desire the presidency. The office quite as earnestly sought him as the most popular man in the country who had proved himself to be a man of great abilities in the various positions he had previously filled, and as honest as he was patriotic. He had few personal enemies. His enemies were the leaders of the federal party, if we accept Aaron Burr, in whose honesty few believed. The lies which the bitter and hostile federalists told about Jefferson were lost on the great majority of the people who believed in him. Jefferson was inaugurated as president in 1801 and selected an able cabinet with his friend and disciple James Madison as secretary of state, and Albert Gallatin an experienced financier, a Swiss by birth, as secretary of the treasury. He at once made important changes in all matters of etiquette and forms, introducing greater simplicity, abolishing levies, titles and state ceremonials, and making himself more accessible to the people. His hospitality was greater than that of any preceding or succeeding president. He lived in the White House more like a Virginian planter than a great public functionary, wearing plain clothes and receiving foreign ministers without the usual formalities, much to their chagrin. He also prevailed on Congress to reduce the Army and Navy, retaining a force only large enough to maintain law and order. He set the example of removing important officers hostile to his administration, although he did not make sweeping changes, as did General Jackson afterward, on the avowed ground that spoils belonged to victors, thus increasing the bitterness of partisanship. The most important act of Jefferson's administration was the purchase of Louisiana from France for fifteen million dollars. Bonaparte had intended, after that great territory had been ceded to him by Spain, to make a military colony at New Orleans, and thus control the Mississippi and its branches. But as he wanted money and as his ambition centered in European conquests, he was easily won over by the American diplomatists to forgo the possession of that territory, the importance of which he probably did not appreciate, and it became a part of the United States. James Monroe and Robert Livingston closed the bargain with the first consul, and were promptly sustained by the administration, although they had really exceeded their instructions. Bonaparte is reported to have said of this transaction, this accession of territory strengthens forever the power of the United States. I have given to England a maritime rival that will sooner or later humble her pride. By this purchase, which Jefferson had much at heart, the United States secured not only millions of square miles of territory, but the control of the Gulf of Mexico. This fortunate acquisition prevented those entangling disputes and hostilities which would have taken place, whether Spain or France owned Louisiana. Doubtless, Jefferson laid himself open to censure from the Federalists for assuming unconstitutional powers in this purchase, but the greatness of the service more than balanced the irregularity, and the ridicule and abuse from his political enemies fell harmless. No one can question that his prompt action, whether technically legal or illegal, was both wise and necessary. It practically gave to the United States the undisputed possession of the vast territory between the Mississippi and the Rocky Mountains. Moreover, the President's enlightened encouragement of the explorations of Lewis and Clark's exposition across the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean led to the ultimate occupancy of California and the West Coast itself. The next event of national interest connected with the administration of Jefferson in his long term of eight years, for he was re- elected President and began his second term in 1805, was the enterprise of Aaron Burr, with a view of establishing a monarchy in Mexico. It was fortunately defeated and the disappointed and ambitious politician narrowly escaped being convicted of high treason. He was saved only by the unaccountable intrigues of the Federalists at a time of intense party warfare. Jefferson would have punished this unscrupulous intriguer if he could, but Burr was defended by a council of extraordinary ability. Chiefly, Federalist lawyers at the head of whom was Luther Martin of Maryland, probably the best lawyer in the country, notwithstanding his dissipated habits. Martin was one of those few drinking men whose brains are not clouded by liquor. He could argue a case after having drunk brandy enough to intoxicate any ordinary man and be the brighter for it. Burr also brought to bear the resources of his own extraordinary intellect by way of quiet suggestions to his council. This remarkable man was born at Newark, New Jersey in 1756 and was the son of Reverend Aaron Burr, President of Princeton College. He was a grandson of the celebrated Jonathan Edwards, the most original and powerful metaphysical intellect known to the religious history of this country who confirmed Calvinism as the creed of New England Puritans. The young Burr, on the death of his father and grandfather, inherited what was then considered as a fortune and was graduated at Princeton in 1772 with no enviable reputation, being noted for his idleness and habits bordering on dissipation. He was a handsome and sprightly young man of sixteen, a favorite with women of all ages. He made choice of the profession of law and commenced the study under Tappan Reeve of Elizabeth Town. After the Battle of Bunker Hill he entered the army at Boston, but tired of inactivity joined Arnold's expedition to Quebec where he distinguished himself by his bravery. Ill health compelled him to leave the army after four years service, the youngest colonel in the army. He was no admirer of Washington regarding him as a farmer and Indian fighter rather than a soldier. He favored the cabal against him, headed by Gates and Conway. Washington, while ready to acknowledge Burr's military abilities, always distrusted him and withheld from him the rank of Brigadier. On leaving the army at the age of 23 Burr resumed his studies of the law and was admitted to the Albany Bar after brief preparation. Conscious of his talents he soon after settled in New York and enjoyed a lucrative practice, the rival of Alexander Hamilton being employed with him on all important cases. He had married in 1782 the widow of an English officer, a Mrs. Provost, a lady older than he, with uncommon accomplishments. In 1784 he was chosen a member of the New York legislature and was on intimate terms with the Clintons, the Livingstons, the Van Rensseliers and the Skylers. In 1789 he was made Attorney General of the State during the administration of Governor George Clinton. His popularity was as great as were his talents and in 1791 he was elected to the United States Senate over General Philip Skyler and became the leader of the Republican Party with increasing popularity and influence. In 1796 he was a presidential candidate and in 1800 being again a candidate for the presidency he received 73 votes in the House of Representatives the same number that were cast for Jefferson. He would doubtless have been elected president but for the efforts of Hamilton who threw his influence in favor of Jefferson Democrat as he was as the safer man of the two. Burr never forgave his rival at the bar for this and hence forward the deepest enmity wrinkled in his soul for the great Federalist leader. End of section 17 Section 18 of Beacon Lights of History Volume 11 American Founders by John Lord. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Recording by Kay Hand. Thomas Jefferson Part 3 As Vice President Burr was marked for his political intrigues and incurred the distrust if not the hostility of Jefferson who neglected Burr's friends and bestowed political favors on his enemies. Disgusted with the inactivity to which his office doomed him Burr polled every wire to be elected Governor of New York but the opposition of the great Democratic families caused his defeat which was soon followed by his assassination of Hamilton called a duel. Universal execration for this hideous crime drove him for a time from New York although he was still Vice President but his political career was ended although his ambition was undiminished. Then seeing that his influence in the eastern and middle states was hopelessly lost Burr looked for a theater of new cabals and turned his eyes to the west opened to public view by the purchase of Louisiana. In the preparation of his plans he went first to New Orleans then a French settlement where he was lionized returning by way of Nashville, Frankfurt, Lexington and St. Louis. At the latter post he found General Wilkinson to whom he communicated his scheme of founding an empire in the west a most desperate undertaking. On an island of the Ohio near Marietta he visited its owner called Blenner-Hassett a restless and worthless Irishman whom he induced to follow his fortunes. The adventurers contracted for fifteen boats and enlisted quite a number of people to descend the Mississippi and make New Orleans their rallying point supposing that the western population were dissatisfied with the government and were ready to secede and establish a new republic or empire to include Mexico. Also relying on the aid of General Wilkinson at St. Louis. But they miscalculated. Wilkinson was true to his colors the people whom they had seduced gradually dropped off the territorial magistrates became suspicious and alarmed and the governor of the territory communicated his fears to the president who at once issued a proclamation to arrest the supposed conspirators who had fled when their enterprise had failed. Burr was seized near Natchez and was tried for conspiracy but the trial came to nothing. He contrived to escape in the night but was again arrested in Alabama and sent to Richmond to be tried for treason. As has been said he was acquitted by a jury of which John Randolph was the foreman with the sympathy of all the women of whom he was a favorite to the day of his death. The trial lasted six months and Jefferson did all he could to convict him with the assistance of William Wirt just rising into notice. Although acquitted Burr was a ruined man. His day of receptions and popularity was over. His sad but splendid career came to an inglorious close. Feeling unsafe in his own country he wandered abroad at times treated with great distinction wherever he went but always arousing suspicions. He was obliged to leave England and wandered as a fugitive from country to country without money or real friends. At Paris and London he suffered extreme poverty although admired in society. At last he returned to New York utterly destitute and resumed the practice of the law but was without social position and generally avoided. He succeeded in 1832 in winning the hand of a wealthy widow but he spent her money so freely that she left him. After the separation he supported himself with great difficulty but retained his elegant manner and fascinating conversation until he died in the house of a lady friend in 1836 and was buried at Princeton by the side of his father and grandfather. Our history narrates no fall from an exalted position more melancholy or more richly deserved than his. Without being dissipated he was a bad and unprincipled man from the start. He might have been the pride of his country like Hamilton and Jefferson being the equal of both in abilities and at one time in popularity. The school books have given to him and to Benedict Arnold an infamous immortality comparing the one with Cain and the other with Judas the Scariat. The most important measure connected with Jefferson's long administration was the non-importation act commonly called the embargo. It proved in the end a mistake and shed no glory on the fame of the president and yet perhaps it prevented a war or at least delayed it. The piece of 1783 and the acknowledgement of American independence did not restore friendly relations between England and the United States. It was not in human nature that a proud and powerful state like England should see the disruption of her empire and her fairest foreign possession torn from her without embittered feelings leading to acts which could not be justified by international law or by enlightened reason. Accordingly the government of Great Britain treated the American envoys with rudeness, insolence, and contempt much to their chagrin and the indignation of Americans generally. It also adopted measures exceedingly injurious to American commerce. France and England being at war the Americans as neutrals secured most of the carrying trade to the disgust of British merchants and declaring mutual blockade both French and English cruisers began to capture American trading ships, the English being especially outrageous in their doings. Said Jefferson in his annual message in 1805 our coasts have been infested and our harbors watched by private armed vessels. They have captured in the very entrance of our harbors as well as on the high seas not only the vessels of our friends coming to trade with us but our own also. They have carried them off under pretense of legal adjudication but not daring to approach a court of justice. They have plundered and sunk them by the way or in obscure places where no evidence could arise against them, maltreated the crews and abandoned them in boats in the open sea or on desert shores without food or covering. In view of these things the president recommended the building of gunboats and the reorganization of the militia and called attention to materials in the navy yards for constructing battleships. The English even went further and set up a claim to the right of search. Sailors were taken from American ships to be impressed into their naval service on the plea, generally unfounded, that they were British subjects and deserters. At last British audacity went so far as to attack an American frigate at Hampton Roads and carry away four alleged British sailors three of whom were American born. The English doctrine that no man could expatriate himself was not allowed by America where immigrants and new citizens were always welcome. But in the case of Native Americans there could be no question as to their citizenship. This outrage aroused indignation from one end of the country to the other and a large party clamored for war. But the policy of Jefferson was pacific. He abhorred war and entered into negotiations which came to nothing. Nor to his mind was the country prepared for war. We had neither army nor navy to speak of. It was plain that we should be beaten on the land and on the sea. Much as he hated England he preferred to temporize and build a few gunboats which everybody laughed at. Nor did the French government behave much better than the English. It looked upon the United States as an unsettled and weak country to be robbed with impunity. At last, driven from the high seas the Americans could rely only on the coasting trade. One half of the mercantile world was sealed up by the British and the other half by the French. Jefferson now appealed to Congress and the result was the Non-Importation Act or EMBARGO forbidding Americans to trade with France and England. This policy was intended as a pressure on English merchants but it was a half measure and did not affect British legislation which had for its object the utter annihilation of American commerce. Neither France nor England was hurt seriously by the EMBARGO while our ships lay rotting at the wharves and our merchants found that their occupation was gone. The new England merchants were discouraged and discontented. It was not they who wished to see their ships shut up by a doubtful policy. They would have preferred to run risks rather than be idle. But Jefferson paid no heed to their grumblings feeling that he was exhibiting to foreign powers unusual forbearance. It is singular that he persevered in a policy that nearly the whole body of merchants censured and regarded as a failure. But he did and Congress was subservient to his decrees. No succeeding president ever had the influence over Congress that he had. He was almost a dictator. He found opposition only among the federalists whose power was gone forever. At last when the farmers and planters joined with the shipping interests in complaining of the embargo Jefferson was persuaded that it was a failure and three days before his administration closed it was repealed by Congress. But even this measure did not hurt the party which he had marshaled with such transcendent tact. For his friend and disciple James Madison was elected to succeed him in 1809. The embargo had had one result. It deferred the war with Great Britain to the next administration. That conflict of 1812-15 was not a glorious war for America except on the ocean. It was not entered upon by the British with any hope of the conquest of the country but to do all the harm they could to the people who had achieved their independence. On the part of the United States it was simply a choice between insult, insolence and injury on the one hand and on the other the expenditure of money and loss of life which would bear as hard on England as on the United States. Both parties at last we read of a contest which promised no permanent settlement of interests or principles. The federalists deprecated it from the beginning. The Republican democracy sustained it from the instinct of national honor. Probably it could not have been avoided without the surrender of national dignity. It was the last of our wars with Great Britain. Future difficulties will doubtlessly be settled by arbitration or not settled at all in spite of mutual ill will. England and America cannot afford to fight. Our late civil war demonstrated this. When, with all the ill feeling between the two nations, war was averted. The interest of trade may molify and soften international jealousies but only for barons and the cultivation of mutual and common interests can eradicate the sentiments of mutual dislike. However, it was not the embargo nor the meditated treason of Aaron Burr nor the purchase of Louisiana, important as these were, which gives chief interest to the eight years of Jefferson's administration and made it a political epoch. It was the firm growth in establishment of the Democratic Party of which Jefferson was the father and leader as Hamilton was the great chieftain of the federalist. With the accession of Jefferson to power, a new policy was inaugurated which from his day has been the policy of the government except in great financial emergencies when men of brain have had the direction of public affairs. Democratic leaders like Jackson and Van Buren representing the passions or interests or prejudices of the masses, it would seem have been generally unfortunate enough to lead the country into financial difficulties because they have conformed to the unenlightened instincts of the people rather than to the opinions of the enlightened few. Great merchants, capitalists and statesmen that is men of experience and ability. And when these men of brain have extricated the country from the financial distress which men inexperienced in finance and ignorant of the principles of political economy have brought about, the Democratic leaders have regained their political ascendancy since they appealed more than their antagonists to those watch words so dear to the American heart, the abolition of monopolies, unequal taxation, the exaltation of the laboring classes, whatever promises to aggrandize the nation in a material point of view or professes to bring about the reign of liberty, fraternity, and equality, and the abolition of social distinctions. It cannot be doubted that the policy of Jefferson while it appealed to the rights and interests of working men of men who labor with their hands rather than by their brains has favored the reign of demagogues, the great curse of American institutions. Who now rule the cities of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Cincinnati, and Chicago? Is it not those who, in cities at least, have made self-government the great principle for which Jefferson contended almost an impossibility? This great statesman was sufficiently astute to predict the rule of the majority for generations to come, but I doubt if he anticipated the character of the men to whom the majority would delegate their power. Here he was not so sagacious as his great political rivals. I believe that if he could have foreseen what a miserable set the politicians would generally turn out to be with their venality, their unscrupulousness, their vile flatteries of the people, their system of spoils, their indifference to the higher interests of the nation, his faith in democracy as a form of government would have been essentially shaken. He himself was no demagogue. His error was in not foreseeing the logical sequence of those abstract theories which made up his political religion. The religion of humanity such as the French philosophers had taught him, but his theories pleased the people and he himself was personally popular. The most so of all our statesmen not accepting Henry Clay who made many enemies. Jefferson's manners were simple, his dress was plain, he was accessible to everybody, he was boundless in his hospitalities, he cared little for money, his opinions were liberal and progressive, he avoided quarrels, he had but few prejudices, he was kind and generous to the poor and unfortunate, he exalted agricultural life, he hated artificial splendor and all shams and lies. In his morals he was irreproachable unlike Hamilton and Burr. He never made himself ridiculous like John Adams by egotism, vanity and jealousy. He was the most domestic of men, worshipped by his family and admired by his guest, always ready to communicate knowledge, strong in his convictions, perpetually writing his sincere sentiments and beliefs in letters to his friends, as upright and honest a man as ever filled a public station, and finally retiring to private life with the respect of the whole nation over which he continued to exercise influence after he had parted with power. And when he found himself poor and embarrassed in consequence of his unwise hospitality, he sold his library, the best in the country, to pay his debts, as well as the most valuable part of his estate, yet keeping up his cheerfulness and serenity of temper and rejoicing in the general prosperity which was produced by the ever expanding energies and resources of a great country, rather than by the political theories which he advocated with so much ability. On his final retirement to Monticello, in 1809, after forty-four years of continuous public service, Jefferson devoted himself chiefly to the care of his estate, which had been much neglected during his presidential career. To his surprise, he found himself in debt, having lived beyond his income while president, but he did not essentially change his manner of living, which was generous, though neither luxurious nor ostentatious. He had stalls for thirty-six horses, and sometimes as many as fifty guests at dinner. There was no tavern near him, which had so much company. He complains that an ox would all be eaten in two days while a load of hay would disappear in a night. Fond, as he was of company, he would not allow his guests to rob him of the hours he devoted to work, either in his library or on his grounds. His correspondence was enormous. He received sixteen hundred and seven letters in one year, and answered most of them. After his death there were copies of sixteen thousand letters which he had written. His industry was marvelous. Even in retirement he was always writing or reading or doing something. He was, perhaps, excessively fond of his garden, of his flowers, of his groves, and his walks. Music was, as he himself said, the favorite passion of his soul. His house was the largest in Virginia, and this was filled with works of art and the presents he had received. But his financial difficulties increased from year to year. He was too fond of experiments and fancy improvements to be practically successful as a farmer. One of his granddaughters writes thus of him, I cannot describe the feelings of veneration, admiration, and love that existed in my heart for him. I looked upon him as being too great and too good for my comprehension. I never heard him utter a harsh word to any one of us. On winter evenings as we sat round the fire he taught us games and would play them with us. He reproved without wounding us and commended without making us vain. His nature was so eminently sympathetic that with those he loved he could enter into their feelings, anticipate their wishes, gratify their tastes, and surround them with an atmosphere of affection. Thus did he live in his plain but beautiful house, in sight of the Blue Ridge, with Charlottesville and the University at his feet. He rode daily for ten miles until he was 82. He died July 4th, 1826, full of honors, and everywhere funeral orations were delivered to his memory, the best of which was by Daniel Webster in Boston. Among his papers was found the inscription which he wished to have engraved on his tomb. Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the Statutes of Virginia for Religious freedom, and father of the University of Virginia. He does not allude to his honors or his offices, not a word about his diplomatic career or of his stations as governor of Virginia, secretary of state, or president of the United States. But the three things he does name enshrine the best convictions of his life and the substance of his labors in behalf of his country, political independence, religious freedom, and popular education. The fame of Jefferson as author of the Declaration of Independence is more than supported by his writings at different times which bear on American freedom and the rights of man. It is as a writer on political liberty that he is most distinguished. He was not an orator or speech maker. He worked in his library among his books, meditating on the great principles which he enforced with so much lucidity and power. It was for his skill with the pen that he was selected to draft the immortal charter of American freedom which endeared him to the hearts of the people and which no doubt contributed largely to cement the states together in their resistance to Great Britain. His reference to the statute of Virginia in favor of religious freedom illustrates another of his leading sentiments to which he clung with an undeviating tenacity during his whole career. He may have been a free thinker like Franklin but he did not make war on the religious beliefs of mankind. He only desired that everybody should be free to adopt such religious principles as were dear to him without hindrance or molestation. He was wise before his age and liberality of mind and he ought not to be stigmatized as an infidel for his wise toleration. Although his views were far from orthodox they did not after all greatly differ from those of John Adams himself and the men of the day who were enamored with the ideas of Voltaire and Rousseau. At that time even the most influential of the clergy especially in New England were Arminians and their religious creed. The 18th century was not a profound or religious epoch. It was an age of war and political agitations a drinking, swearing, licentious, godless age among the leaders of society and of ignorant prejudice and pharisaic formalities among the people. Jefferson's own purity and a brightness of life amid the laxity of the times is an unquestionable evidence of the elevation of his character and the sincerity of his morals and religious beliefs. The third great object of Jefferson's life was to promote popular education as an essential condition to the safety of the Republic. While he advocated unbounded liberty he knew well enough that it would degenerate into license unless the people were well informed. But what interested him the most was the University of Virginia in whose behalf he spent the best part of his declining years. He gave money freely himself and induced the legislation to endow it liberally. He superintended the construction of the buildings which alone cost 300,000. He selected the professors prescribed the course of study and was chairman of the Board of Trustees and looked after the interests of the institution. He thought more of those branches of knowledge which tended to liberalize the mind then of Latin and Greek. He gave a practical direction to the studies of the young men allowing them to select such branches as were congenial to them and would fit them for a useful life. He would have no president but gave the management of all details to the professors who were equal in rank. He appealed to the highest motives among the students and recognized them as gentlemen rather than boys allowing no espionage. He was rigorous in the examinations of the students and no one could obtain a degree unless it were deserved. While he did not exclude religion from the college mourning prayers being held every day attendance upon religious services was not obligatory. Every Sunday some clergymen from the town or neighborhood preached his sermon which was generally well attended. Few colleges in this country have been more successful or more ably conducted and the excellence of instruction drew students from every quarter of the South. Before the war there were nearly 700 students and I never saw a more enthusiastic set of young men or a set who desired knowledge for the sake of knowledge more enthusiastically than did those in the University of Virginia. Although it is universally admitted that Jefferson had a broad original and powerful intellect that he stamped his mind on the institutions of his country that to no one except Washington is the country more indebted yet I failed to see that he was transcendently great in anything. He was a good lawyer a wise legislator and able diplomatist a clear writer and an excellent president but in none of the spheres he occupied did he reach the most exalted height. As a lawyer he was surpassed by Adams, Burr and Marshall. As an orator he was nothing at all as a writer he was not equal to Hamilton and Madison in profundity and power as a diplomatist he was far below Franklin and even Jay intact in patience and in skill. As a governor he was timid and vacillating while as a president he is not to be compared with Washington for dignity for wisdom for consistency or executive ability. Yet on the whole he has left a great name for giving shape to the institutions of his country and for intense patriotism. Preeminent in no single direction he was in the main the greatest political genius that has been elevated to the presidential chair but perhaps greater as a politician than as a statesman in the sense that Pitt, Canning and Peel were statesmen. He was not made for active life he was rather a philosopher wielding power by his pen casting a searching glance into everything and leading men by his amiability his sympathetic nature his force of character and his enlightened mind. The question might arise whether Jefferson's greatness was owing to force of circumstances or to an original creative intellect like that of Franklin or Alexander Hamilton. But for the revolution he might never have been heard of outside his native state. This however might be said of most of the men who have figured in American history possibly of Washington himself. The great rulers of the world seem to be raised up by almighty power through peculiar training to a peculiar fitness for the accomplishment of certain ends which they themselves did not foresee. Men like Abraham Lincoln who was not that sort of man whom Henry Clay or Daniel Webster would probably have selected for the guidance of this mighty nation in the greatest crisis of its history. Authorities The life of Jefferson by Parton is the most interesting that I have read in the fullest but not artistic. He introduces much superfluous matter that had better be left out. As for other lives of Jefferson that by Morse is the best that of Scholar is of a special interest as to Jefferson's attitude towards slavery and popular education. Randall has written an interesting sketch. For the rest I would recommend the same authorities as on John Adams in the previous chapter. End of Section 18 Section 19 of Beacon Lights of History Volume 11 American Founders by John Lorde This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Recording by Kay Hand John Marshall Part 1 1755 to 1835 The United States Supreme Court by John Bassett Moore LLD While the revolution had severed the tie which bound the colonies to the mother country and had established the independence of the United States the task of organizing and consolidating the new nation yet remained to be performed. The articles of confederation though designed to form a perpetual union between the States constituted in reality but a loose association under which the various Commonwealths retained for the most part the powers of independent governments. In the Treaty of Peace with Great Britain of 1782-83 strong national ground was taken but the general government was unable to secure the execution of its stipulations. The public debts remained unpaid for want of power to levy taxes. Commerce between the States as well as with foreign nations was discouraged and rendered precarious by variant and obstructive local regulations. Nor did there exist any judicial authority to which an appeal could be taken for the enforcement of national rights and obligations as against inconsistent state laws and adjudications. These defects were sought to be remedied by the Constitution of the United States but as in the case of all other written instruments the provision of this document were open to construction. Statesmen and lawyers divided in their interpretation of it according to their prepossessions for or against the creation and exercise of a strong central authority. Among the organs of government created by the Constitution was one Supreme Court in which together with such inferior courts as Congress might from time to time establish was vested the judicial power of the United States. This power was declared to extend to all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution itself the laws of the United States and treaties made under their authority to all cases affecting ambassadors other public ministers and consuls to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to controversies to which the United States should be a party to controversies between two or more states between a state and a citizen of another state and between citizens of different states as well as between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states in between a state or the citizens thereof and foreign states citizens or subjects in all cases affecting ambassadors other public ministers and consuls and those in which a state should be a party the Supreme Court was vested with original jurisdiction while in all the other enumerated cases its jurisdiction was to be appellate with the exception of the suits against a state by individuals which were excluded by the 11th amendment the judicial power of the United States remains today as it was originally created but at the time when the Constitution was made the importance to which the judicial power would attain in the political system of the United States could not be foreseen the form was devised but like the nation itself its full proportions remained to be developed in that development so far as it has been made by the judiciary one man was destined to play a preeminent part this man was John Marshall under whose hand as James Brice has happily said the Constitution seemed not so much to rise to its full stature as to be gradually unveiled by him till it should revealed in the harmonious perfection of the form which its framers had designed for this unrivaled achievement there has been conceded to Marshall by universal consent the title of expounder of the Constitution of the United States and the general approval with which his work is now surveyed is attested by the tribute lately paid to his memory 4th of February 1901 by a celebration spontaneously national of the 100th anniversary of his assumption of the office of Chief Justice of the United States is without example in judicial annals it is therefore a matter of interest not only to every student of American history but also to every American patriot to study his career and to acquaint himself with that combination of traits and accidents by which his character and course in life were determined John Marshall was born September 24th 1755 in Fockier County, Virginia at a small village then called Germantown but now known as Midland a station on the southern railway not far south of Manassas his grandfather John Marshall the first of the family of whom there appears to be any record was an immigrant from Wales he left four sons the eldest of whom was Thomas Marshall the father of the Chief Justice Thomas Marshall though a man of meager early education possessed great natural gifts and rendered honorable and useful public service both as a member of the Virginia legislature and as a soldier in the Revolutionary War in which he rose to the rank of Colonel his son John Marshall was the eldest of 15 children of his mother whose maiden name was Keith little is known but it has been well observed by one of Marshall's biographers that as she reared her 15 children seven sons and eight daughters all to mature years she could have had little opportunity to make any other record for herself and could hardly have made a better one subsequently to his birth Marshall's parents removed to an estate called Oak Hill in the western part of Fockeer County it was here that in 1775 when at 19 years of age he heard the call of his country and entered the Patriot army as a lieutenant we have of him at this time the first personal description written by a kinsman who was an eyewitness of the scene and preserved in the eulogy delivered by Mr. Binney before the select and common councils of Philadelphia on September 24th 1835 his figure says the writer I have now before me he was about six feet high straight and rather slender of dark complexion showing little if any rosy red yet good health the outline of the face nearly a circle and within that eyes dark to blackness strong and penetrating beaming with intelligence and good nature an upright forehead rather low was terminated in a horizontal line by a mass of raven black hair of unusual thickness and strength the features of the face were in harmony with this outline and the temples fully developed the result of this combination was interesting and very agreeable the body and limbs indicated agility rather than strength in which however he was by no means deficient he wore a purple or pale blue hunting shirt and trousers of the same material fringed with white around black hat mounted with a buck's tail for a cockade crowned the figure and the man he went through the manual exercise by word and motion deliberately pronounced and performed in the presence of the company before he required the men to imitate him and then proceeded to exercise them with the most perfect temper after a few lessons a company were dismissed and informed that if they wished to hear more about the war and would form a circle around him he would tell them what he understood about it he addressed the company for something like an hour he spoke at the close of his speech of the minute battalion about to be raised and said he was going into it and expected to be joined by many of his heroes he then challenged an acquaintance to a game of quites and they closed the day with foot races and other athletic exercises at which there was no betting he had walked 10 miles to the muster field and returned the same distance on foot to his father's house at oak hill where he arrived a little after sunset the patriot forces in which marshal was enrolled were described as minute men of whom it was said by john randolph that they were raised in a minute armed in a minute marched in a minute fought in a minute and vanquished in a minute their uniform consisted of homespun hunting shirts bearing the words liberty or death in large white letters on the breast while they wore buck's tails in their hats and tomahawks and scalping knives in their belts we are told and may readily believe that their appearance inspired in the enemy not a little apprehension but we are also assured and may as readily believe that this feeling never was justified by any act of cruelty their first act of service was seen in the autumn of 1775 when they marched for Norfolk where lord dunmore had established his headquarters they saw their first fighting at great bridge where the british troops were defeated with heavy loss subsequently the virginia forces to which marshal belonged joined the army of washington in new jersey and he saw a service not only in that state but also in pennsylvania and new york and later in the war again in virginia in may 1777 he was appointed a captain he took part in the battles of iron hill and brandy wine he was also present at monmouth at paulis or polis hook and at the capture of stony point he endured the winter sufferings at valley forge where because of his patience firmness and good humor he won the special regard of the soldiers and his brother officers in the course of his military service he often acted as judge advocate and he made the acquaintance of washington and hamilton with both of whom he contracted a lasting friendship as to the effect of these early experiences on the formation of his opinions marshal himself has testified i am said he on a certain occasion disposed to describe my devotion to the union and to a government competent to its preservation at least as much to casual circumstances as to judgment i had grown up at a time when the maxim united we stand divided we fall was the maxim of every orthodox american and i had imbibed these sentiments so thoroughly that they constituted a part of my being i carried them with me into the army where i found myself associated with brave men from different states who were risking life and everything valuable in a common cause and where i was confirmed in the habit of considering america as my country and congress as my government in seventeen eighty marshal was admitted to the bar and after another term of service in the army he began in seventeen eighty one the practice of the law in focure county his professional attainments must then have been comparatively limited his education in letters he had derived solely from his father who was fond of literature and possessed some of the writings of the english masters and from two gentlemen of classical learning whose tuition he enjoyed for the brief period of two years of legal education he had had according to our present standards exceedingly little it is said that when about eighteen years of age he began the study of blackstone but apart from this his legal education seems to have been gained from a short course of lectures by chancellor weith at william and mary college and from such reading as he was able to indulge in during his military service and yet removing to richmond about seventeen eighty three he almost immediately rose to professional eminence this extraordinary man said william wort without the aid of fancy without the advantages of person voice attitude gesture or any of the ornaments of an orator deserves to be considered as one of the most eloquent men in the world if eloquence may be said to consist of the power of seizing the attention with irresistible force and never permitting it to allude the grasp until the hero has received the conviction which the speaker intends he possesses one original and almost superhuman faculty the faculty of developing a subject by a single glance of his mind and detecting at once the very point on which every controversy depends from seventeen eighty two to seventeen ninety five marshal was repeatedly elected to the Virginia legislature the last time without his knowledge and against his wishes and he also served one term as a member of the executive council of the state but as his residence was for the most part at Richmond his public service did not seriously interrupt his career at the bar his experience in state politics however served to deepen his conviction of the need of an efficient and well organized national government and of restrictions on the power of the states in the formation of the constitution of the united states marshal had no hand he was not a member of the convention by which it was framed but when it was submitted to the several states for their action he became a determined advocate of its adoption in the virginia convention which was called to act upon that question the prospects of a favorable decision seemed at first to be most unpromising among those who opposed ratification we find the names of henry mason grason and munro names which sufficiently attested that the opposition was one not of mere faction or obstruction but of principal and patriotic feeling henry who had been one of the first in earlier days to sound the note of revolution saw in the proposed national government a portent to popular liberties in the office of president he perceived the likeness of a kingly crown and the control of the purse and the sorority foresaw the extinction of freedom and the power to make treaties to regulate commerce and to adopt laws he discerned an ambuscade in which the rights of the states and of the people would be destroyed unawares to these alarming predictions the advocates of ratification replied with strong and temperate reasoning and while madison was their leader among those who won distinction in the contest stood marshal he argued that the plan adopted by the federal convention provided for a regulated democracy the only alternative to which was despotism he contended for the establishment of an efficient government as the only means of assuring popular rights and the preservation of the public faith violations of which were constantly occurring under the existing government it is interesting to notice that in replying to the suggestion that the legislative power of the proposed government would prove to be practically unlimited he declared if they the united states were to make a law not warranted by any of the powers enumerated it would be considered by the judges as an infringement of the constitution which they are to guard against they would declare it void in the end the convention ratified the constitution by a majority of 10 votes a result probably influenced by the circumstance that it had then been accepted by nine states and had thus by its terms been established between the adhering commonwealths after the organization of the national government marshal consistently supported the measures of washington's administrations including the jay treaty and became a leader of the federalist party which in spite of washington's great personal hold on the people was in a minority in virginia but he did not covet office he declined the position of attorney general of the united states which was offered to him by washington as well as the mission to frances successor to moon roam in 1787 however at the earnest solicitation of president adams he accepted in a grave emergency the post of envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to that country on a special mission in which he was associated with charles coatsworth pinkney of south carolina and elbridge jerry of massachusetts few diplomatic enterprises have had so strange a history when the plenipotentiaries arrived in paris the directory was at the height of its power and tally rand was its minister of foreign affairs he at first received the envoys unofficially but afterwards intimated to them through his private secretary that they could not have a public audience of the directory till their negotiations were concluded meanwhile they were waited upon by various persons who represented in order to affect a settlement of the differences between the two countries it would be necessary to place a sum of money at the disposal of tally rand as a doser for the ministers except merlin the minister of justice who is already obtaining enough from the condemnation of vessels and also to make a loan of money to the government the plenipotentiaries though they at first repulsed these suggestions at length offered to send one of their number to america to consult the government on the subject of a loan provided that the directory would in the meantime suspend proceedings against captured american vessels this offer was not accepted and the american representatives after further conference with the french intermediaries stated that they considered it degrading to their country to carry on further indirect intercourse and that they had determined to receive no further propositions unless the persons who bored them had authority to treat in april 1798 after spending in the french capital six months during which they had with tally rand two unofficial interviews and exchanged with him an ineffectual correspondence pink knee and marshal left paris jerry to the great dissatisfaction of his government remaining behind marshal was the first to reach the united states he was greeted with remarkable demonstrations of respect and approbation for although his mission was unsuccessful he had powerfully assisted in maintaining a firmed and dignified position in the negotiations his entrance into philadelphia had the a claw of a triumph it was at a public dinner given to him by members of both houses of congress that the sentiment was pronounced millions for defense but not a cent for tribute this sentiment has often been ascribed to pink knee who was supposed to have uttered it when approached by the unofficial agents in paris the correspondence shows however that the words employed by mr pink knee were no no not a six pence the meaning was similar but the phrase employed at philadelphia is entitled to a certain immortality of its own on his return to the united states marshal resumed the practice of his profession but soon afterwards at the earnest and treaty of washington he became a candidate for congress declining for that purpose an appointment to the supreme court of the united states as successor to mr justice wilson he was elected after an exciting canvas and in december 1799 took his seat he immediately assumed a leading place among the supporters of president adams administration though on one occasion he exhibited his independence of mere party discipline by voting to repeal the obnoxious second section of the sedition law but of all the acts by which his course in congress was distinguished the most important was his defense of the administration in the case of jonathan robbins alias thomas nash by the 27th article of the jay treaty it was provided that fugitives from justice should be delivered up for the offense of murder or forgery under this stipulation robbins alias nash was charged with the commission of the crime of murder on board a british privateer on the high seas he was arrested on a warrant issued upon the affidavit of the british consul at charleston south carolina after his arrest an application was made to judge be sitting in the united states circuit court at charleston for a writ of habeas corpus while robbins was in custody the president john adams addressed a note to judge be requesting and advising him if it should appear that the evidence warranted it to deliver the prisoner up to the representatives of the british government the examination was held by judge be and robbins was duly surrendered it is an illustration of the vicissitudes of politics that on the strength of this incident the cry was raised that the president had caused the delivery up of an american citizen for this charge there was no ground whatever but it was made to serve the purposes of the day and was one of the causes of the popular antagonism to the administration of john adams when congress met in december seventeen ninety nine a resolution was offered by mr livingston of new york severely condemning the course of the administration its action was defended in the house of representatives by marshall on two grounds first that the case was won clearly within the provisions of the treaty and second that no act having been passed by congress for the execution of the treaty it was incumbent upon the president to carry it into effect by such means as happened to be within his power the speech which marshall delivered on that occasion is said to have been the only one that i ever revised for publication it at once placed him as mr justice story has well said in the front rank of constitutional statesmen silenced opposition and settled forever the points of national law upon which the controversy hinged so convincing was it that mr gallatin who had been requested by mr livingston to reply declined to make the attempt declaring the argument to be unanswerable in may 1800 on the reorganization of president adams cabinet marshall unexpectedly received the appointment of secretary of war he declined it but the office of secretary of state also having become vacant he accepted that position which he held to the fourth of the following march of his term as secretary of state which lasted less than 10 months little has been said nor was it distinguished by any event of unusual importance saved the conclusion of the convention with france of september 30th 1800 the negotiation of which at paris was already in progress under instructions given by his predecessor when he entered the department of state the war between france and great britain growing out of the french revolution was still going on the questions with which he was required to deal were not new and while he exhibited in the discussion of them his usual strength and lucidity of argument he had little opportunity to display a capacity for negotiation only a few of his state papers have been printed nor are those that have been published of special importance he gave instructions to our minister to great britain in relation to commercial restrictions impressments and orders in council violative of the law of nations to our minister to france in regard to the violations of neutral rights perpetrated by that government and to our minister in spain concerning infractions of international law committed chiefly by french authorities within the spanish jurisdiction of these various state papers the most notable was that which he addressed on september 20th 1800 to rufus king then united states minister at london reviewing in this instruction the policy which his government had pursued and to which it still adhered in a conflict between european powers he said the united states does not hold themselves in any degree responsible to france or to britain for their negotiations with the one or the other of these powers but they are ready to make amicable and reasonable explanations with either it has been the object of the american government from the commencement of the present war to preserve between the belligerant powers and exact neutrality the aggressions sometimes of one and sometimes of other belligerant power have forced us to contemplate and prepare for war as a probable event we have repelled and we will continue to repel injuries not doubtful in their nature and hostilities not to be misunderstood but this is a situation of necessity not of choice it is one in which we are placed not by our own acts but by the acts of others in which we shall change so soon as the conduct of others will permit us to change it for a month Marshall held both the office of secretary of state and that of chief justice but at the close of John Adams administration he devoted himself exclusively to his judicial duties never performing thereafter any other public service saved that late in life he acted as a member of the convention to revise the constitution of Virginia it is an interesting fact that prior to his appointment as chief justice Marshall had appeared only once before the supreme court and on that occasion he was unsuccessful this appearance was in the case of where V Hilton which was a suit brought by a British creditor to compel the payment by a citizen of Virginia of a pre-revolutionary debt in conformity with the stipulations of the treaty of peace during the revolutionary war various states among which was Virginia passed acts of sequestration and confiscation by which it was provided that if the American debtor should pay into the state treasury the amount due to his British creditor such payment should constitute an effectual plea in bar to a subsequent action for the recovery of the debt when the representatives of the United States and Great Britain met in Paris to negotiate for peace the question of confiscated debts became a subject of controversy especially in connection with that of the claims of the loyalists for the confiscation of their estates Franklin and Jay though they did not advocate the policy of confiscating debts hesitated chiefly on the ground of a want of authority in the existing national government to override the acts of the states but when John Adams arrived on the scene the situation soon changed by one of those dramatic strokes of which he was a master he ended the discussion by suddenly declaring in the presence of the British plenipotentiaries that so far as he was concerned he had no notion of cheating anybody that the question of paying debts and the question of compensating the loyalists were too and that while he was opposed to compensating the loyalists he would agree to the stipulation to secure the payment of debts it was therefore provided in the fourth article of the treaty that creditors on either side should meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery in full sterling money of bonafied debts contracted prior to the war this stipulation is remarkable not only as the embodiment of an enlightened policy but also as perhaps the strongest assertion to be found in the acts of that time of the power and authority of the national government indeed when the British creditors after the establishment of peace sought to proceed in the state courts they found the treaty unveiling since those tribunals held themselves still to be bound by the local statutes in order to remove this difficulty as well as to provide a rule for the future there was inserted in the constitution of the United States the clause expressly declaring that treaties then made or which should be made under the authority of the United States should be the supreme law of the land binding on the judges in every state anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding on the strength of this provision the question of the debts was raised again and was finally brought before the supreme court Marshall appeared for the state of Virginia to oppose the collection of the debt he based his contention on two grounds first that by the law of nations the confiscation of private debts was justifiable second that had by the law of Virginia been extinguished by its payment into the state treasury and had thus ceased to be due the stipulation of the treaty was inapplicable since there could be no creditor without a debtor it is not strange that this argument was unsuccessful while it doubtless was the best that the cause admitted of it may perhaps serve a useful purpose as an illustration of the right of the suitor to have his case no matter how weak it may be fully and fairly presented for adjudication on the question of the right of confiscation the judges differed one holding that such a right existed while another denied it too doubted and the fifth was silent but as to the operation of the treaty all but one agreed that it restored to the original creditor his right to sue without regard to the original validity or invalidity of the Virginia statute when Marshall took his seat upon the bench the Supreme Court since its organization in 1790 had rendered only six decisions involving constitutional questions of his three predecessors Jay Rutledge and Ellsworth the second Rutledge after sitting one term under a recess appointment retired inconsequence of his rejection by the Senate and neither Jay nor Ellsworth though both were men of high capacity had found in their judicial station the full importance of which was unforeseen an opportunity for the full display of their powers either of mind or of office the coming of Marshall to the seat of justice marks the beginning of an era which is not yet ended and which must endure so long as our system of government retains the essential features with which it was originally in doubt with him really began the process peculiar to our American system of the development of constitutional law by means of judicial decisions based upon the provisions of a fundamental written instrument and designed for its exposition and enforcement by the masterful exercise of this momentous jurisdiction he profoundly affected the course of the national life and won in the knowledge and affections of the American people a larger and higher place than ever has been filled by any other judicial magistrate from 1801 to 1835 in the 34 years during which he presided in the supreme court 62 decisions were rendered involving constitutional questions and in 36 of these the opinion of the court was written by Marshall in the remaining 26 the preparation of the opinions was distributed among his associates who numbered five before 1808 and after that date six during the whole period of his service his dissenting opinions numbered eight only one of which involved a constitutional question nor was the supremacy which this record indicates confined to questions of constitutional law the reports of the court during Marshall's tenure filled 30 volumes containing 1215 cases in 94 of these no opinions were filed while 15 were decided by the court in the remaining 1106 cases the opinion of the court was delivered by Marshall in 519 or nearly one half end of section 19 section 20 of week in length of history volume 11 American founders by John Lord this Libervox recording is in the public domain recording by Kay Hand John Marshall part two a full review of the questions of constitutional law decided by the supreme court during Marshall's term of service would involve a comprehensive examination of the foundations on which our constitutional system has been reared but we may briefly refer to certain leading cases by which fundamental principles were established in one of his early opinions he discussed and decided the question whether an act of Congress repugnant to the constitution is void this question was then by no means free from difficulty and doubt the framers of the constitution took care to assure its enforcement by judicial means against inconsistent state action by the explicit provision that the constitution itself as well as federal statutes and treaties should be the supreme law of the land and as such binding upon the state judges in spite of anything in the local laws and constitutions but as to the power of the courts to declare unconstitutional a federal statute the instrument was silent there is reason to believe that this silence was not unintentional nor would it be difficult to cite highly respectable opinions to the effect that the courts viewed as a coordinate branch of the government have no power to declare invalid an act of the legislature unless they possess express constitutional authority to that effect we have seen that Marshall expressed in the discussions of the Virginia convention a contrary view but it is one thing to assert an opinion in debate and another thing to declare it from the bench especially in a case involved in or relating to political contests and such a case was Marbury versus Madison Marbury was a citizen of the district of Columbia who had been appointed as a justice of the peace by John Adams just before his vacation of the office of president it was one of the so-called midnight appointments of president Adams which became a subject of heated political controversy it was alleged that Marbury's commission had been made out sealed and signed but that Mr. Madison who immediately afterwards became secretary of state withheld it from him Marbury therefore applied to the supreme court for a writ of mandamus to compel its delivery in the course of the judgment which was delivered by Marshall opinions were expressed on certain questions that the decision of which was not essential to the determination of the case and into these it is unnecessary now to enter although one of them has been cited and acted upon as a precedent but on one point the decision of the court was requisite and fundamental and that was on the point of jurisdiction it was held that the court had no power to grant the writ because the federal statute by which the jurisdiction was sought to be conferred was repugnant to the constitution of the United States this was the great question decided and it was a decision of the first importance since its assertion of the final authority of the judicial power in the interpretation and enforcement of our written constitutions came to be accepted almost as an axiom of American jurisprudence in the course of his reasoning chief justice Marshall expressed in terms of unsurpassed clearness the principle which lay at the root of his opinion it is he declared emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is if two laws conflict with each other the courts must decide on the operation of each if then the courts are to regard the constitution and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature the constitution and not such ordinary act must govern the case to which they both apply those then who contravert the principle that the constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution and see only the law this doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions in subsequently applying this rule Marshall affirmed that the courts ought never to declare an act of congress to be void unless upon a clear and strong conviction of its incompatibility with the constitution nevertheless the power has been constantly and frequently exercised and there can be no doubt that from its exercise the supreme court of the united states drives a political importance not possessed by any other judicial tribunal while the supremacy of the constitution was thus judicially asserted over the acts of the national legislature by another series of decisions its proper supremacy over acts of the authorities of the various states was in like manner vindicated of this series we may take as an example versus Virginia decided in 1828 in this case a writ of error was obtained from the supreme court of the united states to a court of the state of Virginia in order to test the validity of a statute of that state which was supposed to be in conflict with a law of the united states it was contended on the part of Virginia that the supreme court could exercise no supervision over the decisions of state tribunals and that the clause in the judiciary act of 1789 which purported to confer such jurisdiction in commenting upon this argument chief justice Marshall observed that if the constitution had provided no tribunal for the final construction of itself or of the laws or treaties of the nation then the constitution and the laws and treaties might receive as many constructions as there were states he then proceeded to demonstrate that such a power of supervision existed maintaining that the general government though limited as to his objects was supreme with respect to those objects and that such a right of supervision was essential to the maintenance of that supremacy in 1819 he delivered in the case of McCullough v. Maryland what is generally regarded as his greatest and most carefully reasoned opinion the particular questions involved were those one of the power of the United States to incorporate a bank and two of the freedom of a bank so incorporated from state taxation or control the United States Bank which congress had rechartered in 1816 had established a branch in Maryland soon afterwards the legislature passed an act requiring all banks situated in the state to issue their notes on stamped paper the object being to strike at the branch bank by indirectly taxing it the case was argued before the supreme court by the most eminent lawyers of the day Pinkney Webster and Wirt appearing for the bank and Luther Martin Joseph Hopkinson and Walter Jones for the state of Maryland the unanimous opinion of the court was delivered by Marshall himself it asserted not only the power of the federal government to incorporate a bank but also the freedom of such a bank from the taxation control or obstruction of any state while no express power of incorporation was given by the constitution yet it was found to be a power necessarily implied since it was essential to the accomplishment of the objects of the union this principle Marshall laid down in these memorable words let the end to be legitimate let it be within the scope of the constitution and all means which are appropriate which are plainly adapted to that end which are not prohibited but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution are constitutional of no less importance than the opinions here to forementioned are those that deal with the power of the general government to regulate commerce and to preserve it from hindrance on the part of the states of these the chief example is that which was delivered in the case of Gibbons versus Ogden in 1824 by the legislature of New York an exclusive right had been granted to Chancellor Livingston and Robert Fulton for a term of years to navigate the waters of the state with steam the validity of this statute had been maintained by the judges in New York including Chancellor Kent and an injunction had been issued restraining other persons from running steamboats between Elizabeth town, New Jersey and the city of New York although they were enrolled and licensed as coasting vessels under the laws of the United States the supreme court speaking through Marshall held the New York statute to be unconstitutional by the constitution of the United States Congress is invested with power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states the term commerce Marshall declared to embrace all the various forms of intercourse including navigation and he affirmed that wherever commerce among the states goes the judicial power of the United States goes to protect it from invasion by state legislatures Mr. Justice Bradley declared that it might truly be said that the constitution received its permanent and final form from judgments rendered by the supreme court during the period in which Marshall was at its head and that with a few modifications super induced by the somewhat differing views on two or three points of his great successor and aside from the new questions growing out of the civil war and the recent constitutional amendments the decisions made since Marshall's times have been little more than the applications of principles established by him and his venerated associates to the rule that Marshall's great constitutional opinions continue to be received as authority there are however a few exceptions the chief of which is that delivered in the Dartmouth College case the particular point of which that acts of incorporation constitute contracts which the state legislatures can neither alter nor revoke has been greatly limited by later decisions while its effect has been generally obviated by express reservations of the right of amendment and repeal with rare exceptions however his constitutional opinions not only remain unshaken but continue to form the very warp and wolf of the law and can scarcely perish but with the memory of the constitution itself nor should we in estimating his achievements lose sight of the almost uncontested ascendancy which he exercised in matters of constitutional law over the members of the tribunal in which he presided in spite of what might have been supposed to be their predilections when constitutional questions trench as they often do on the domain of statesmanship it is natural especially where precedents are lacking that judges should divide upon them in accordance with the views of government maintained by the political parties with which they previously acted and after 1811 a majority of marshals associates on the bench held their appointment from administrations of the party opposed to that which he had belonged this circumstance however does not appear to have disturbed the consistent and harmonious development of the system to which he was devoted and it was in the second half of his term of service that many of the most important cases such as McCullough v. Maryland Cohen's v. Virginia and Gibbons v. Ogden in which he asserted the powers of the national government were decided nor is it alone upon his opinions on questions of constitutional law that marshals fame as a judge rests the decisions of the Supreme Court on constitutional questions naturally attract greater popular interest than its judgments in other matters but we have seen that its jurisdiction embraces a wide range of subjects nor is it desirable that its sphere of action should be circumscribed in the direction of confining it to questions that have a semi-political aspect indeed it may be believed that the safety and permanence of the court would be best assured by extending rather than by contracting its jurisdiction in ordinary commercial subjects in dealing with such subjects however Marshall did not achieve that preeminence which he acquired in the domain of constitutional law a fact doubtless to be accounted for by the defects of his early legal education since no originality of mine can supply the place of learning and matters which depend upon reasoning more or less technical and artificial but in the domain of international law in which there was greater opportunity for elementary reasoning he exhibited the same traits of mind the same breadth and originality of thought the same power in discovering and the same certainty in applying fundamental principles that distinguished him in the realm of constitutional discussions and it was his lot on more than one occasion to blaze the way in the establishment of rules of international conduct during the period of his judicial service decisions were rendered by the supreme court in 195 cases involving questions of international law or in some way affecting the international relations in 80 of these cases the opinion of the court was delivered by Marshall in 37 by Mr. Justice Story in 28 by Mr. Justice Johnson in 19 by Mr. Justice Washington in 14 by Mr. Justice Livingston in five by Mr. Justice Thompson and in one each by Justices Baldwin Gushing and Duvall in eight the decision was rendered by the court in five cases Marshall dissented as an evidence of the respect paid to his opinions by publicist the fact may be pointed out that Wheaton in the first edition of his Elements of International Law makes 150 judicial citations of which 105 are English and 45 American the latter being mostly Marshall's in the last edition he makes 214 similar citations of which 135 are English and 79 American the latter being largely Marshall's and it is proper to add that one of the distinctive marks of his last edition is the extensive incorporation into his text of the words of Marshall's opinions out of 190 cases cited by Hall a recent English publicist of preeminent merit 54 are American and in more than three-fifths of these the opinions are Marshall's one of the most far-reaching of all Marshall's opinions on the questions of international law was that which he delivered in the case of the Schooner exchange decided by the Supreme Court in 1812 in preparing this opinion he was as he declared compelled to explore an unbeaten path with few if any aids from precedents or written laws for the status of a foreign man of war and a friendly port had not then been defined even by the publicist's the exchange was an American vessel which had been captured and confiscated by the French under the Ramboulais decree a decree which both the executive and the Congress of the United States had declared to constitute a violation of the law of nations she was afterwards converted by the French government into a man of war and commissioned under the name of Balou in this character she entered a port of the United States where she was libeled by the original American owners for restitution seasoning by analogy Marshall in a remarkably luminous opinion held that the vessel as a French man of war was not subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals and his opinion forms the basis of the law on the subject at the present day by this decision the rightfulness or wrongfulness of the capture and condemnation of the exchange was left to be determined by the two governments as a political question in this respect Marshall maintained as between the different departments of government when dealing with questions of foreign affairs a distinction which he afterwards seduliously preserved confining the jurisdiction of the courts to judicial questions thus he laid it down in the clearest terms that the recognition of national independence or a belligerency being in its nature a political act belongs to the political branch of the government and that in such matters the courts follow the political branch referring on another occasion to a similar question he said in a controversy between two nations concerning national boundary it is scarcely possible that the courts of either side should refuse to abide by the measures adopted by its own government if those departments which are untrusted with the foreign intercourse of the nation which assert and maintain its interests against foreign powers have unquivocally asserted its rights of dominion over a country of which it is in possession and which it claims under a treaty if the legislature has acted on the construction thus asserted it is not in its own courts that this construction is to be denied Foster v. Nielsen in the case of the american insurance company v. Cantor he asserted the right of the government to enlarge the national domain saying the constitution confers absolutely on the government of the union the power of making war and of making treaties consequently that government possesses the power of acquiring territory either by conquest or by treaty but he held the right to private property in such case to be inviolate us versus perchaman the most luminous exposition of discovery as a source of title and of the nature of indian titles is to be found in one of his opinions johnson v. McIntosh a fundamental doctrine of international laws that of the equality of nations if a clear and unequivocal expression of it to be desired it may be found in the opinion of marshal in the case of the antelope no nation he declared can make a law of nations no principle is more universally acknowledged than the perfect equality of nations russia and janeva have equal rights and when the representatives of the united states 50 years later sought to establish at janeva the liability of great britain for the depredations of the alabama and other confederate cruisers fitted out in british ports in violation of neutrality one of the strongest authorities on which they relied was his opinion in the case of the grand para in the decision of prize cases marshal unlike some of his associates was disposed to moderate the rigor of the english doctrines as laid down by sir william scott i respect sir william scott he declared on a certain occasion as i do every truly great man and i respect his decisions nor should i depart from them on light grounds but it is impossible to consider them attentively without perceiving that his mind leans strongly in favor of the captors this liberal disposition blended with independence of judgment led marshal to dissent from the decision of the court in two well-known cases in one of these which is cited by filimore as the great case of the venus it was held that the property of an american citizen domiciled in a foreign country became on the breaking out of war with that country immediately confiscable as enemies property even though it was shipped before he had knowledge of the war marshal dissented maintained that a mere commercial domicile ought not to be presumed to continue longer than the state of peace that the fate of the property should depend upon the conduct of the owner after the outbreak of the war in continuing to reside and trade in the enemy's country or in taking prompt measures to return to his own in the other case that of the commerce then he sought to disconnect the war in which great britain was engaged on the continent of europe from that which she was carrying on with the united states and to affirm the right of her swedish ally to transport supplies to the british army in the peninsula without infringing the duties of neutrality towards the united states as to his opinion in the case of the venus chancellor kent declared that there was no doubt of its superior solidity and justice and it must be admitted that his opinion on the case of the commercial rested on strong logical grounds since the united states in the allies of great britain in the war on the continent never considered themselves as enemies it is not however by any means essential to marshal's preeminence as a judge to show that his numerous opinions are altogether free from error or inconsistency in one interesting series of cases relating to the power of a nation to enforce prohibitions of commerce by the seizure of foreign vessels outside territorial waters the views which he originally expressed in favor of the existence of such a right appeared to have undergone a market if not radical change in favor of the wise and salutary exemption of ships from visitation and search on the high seas in time of peace rose to be himaly a principle which he affirmed on more than one occasion the antelope in the reasoning of another case though not in its result we may perhaps discern traces of the preconceptions formed by the advocate in the argument concerning the british debts this was the case of brown v united states which involved to the question of the confiscability of the private property of an enemy on land by judicial proceedings in the absence of an act of congress expressly authorizing such proceedings on the theory that war renders all property of the enemy liable to confiscation mr. justice's story with the concurrence of one other member of the court maintained that the act of congress declaring war of itself gave ample authority for the purpose the majority held otherwise and marshal delivered the opinion referring to the practice of nations and the writings of publicists he declared that according to the modern rule tangible property belonging to an enemy and found in the country at the commencement of war ought not to be immediately confiscated that this rule seemed to be totally incompatible with the idea that war does of itself vests the property in the belligerent government and consequently that the declaration of war did not authorize the confiscation since effect was thus given to the modern usage of nations it was unnecessary to declare as he did in the course of his opinion that war gives to the sovereign full right to take the persons and confiscate the property of the enemy wherever found and that the mitigations of this rigid rule which the humane and wise policy of modern times has introduced into practice though they will more or less affect the exercise of this right cannot impair the right itself nor were the two declarations quite consistent the supposition that usage may render unlawful the exercise of a right but cannot impair the right itself is at variance with sound theory between the effect of usage on rights and on the exercise of rights the law draws no precise distinction a right derived from custom acquires no immutability or immunity from the fact to the practices out of which it grew were ancient and barbarous we may therefore ascribe the dictum in question to the influence of preconceptions and turn for the true theory of the law to an opinion of the same great judge delivered 20 years later in which he denied the right of the conqueror to confiscate private property on the ground that it would violate the modern usage of nations which has become law us versus perchaman united with extraordinary powers of mind we find in marshal the greatest simplicity of life and character in this union of simplicity and strength he illustrated the characteristics of the earlier period of our history he has often been compared with the great judges of other countries he has been compared with lord mansfield and although he did not possess the extensive learning and elegant accomplishments of that renowned jurist the comparison is not inappropriate when we consider their breadth of understanding and powers of reasoning and yet mansfield as a member of the house of lords defending the prerogatives of the crown and parliament and marshal as an american patriot sword and hand resisting in the field the assumptions of imperial power represent opposite conceptions he has been compared with lord elden and it may be in that fineness of discrimination and delicate perceptions of equity he was excelled by that famous lord chancellor and yet no greater contrast could be afforded than that of elden's uncertainty and procrastination on the bench with marshal's bold and masterful readiness he has been compared with lord stoel and it may be conceited that in clearness of perception skill in argument and elegance of diction lord stoel has seldom if ever been surpassed and yet it may be said of marshal that in the strength and clearness of his conceptions in the massive force and directness of his reasoning and in the absolute independence and fearlessness with which he announced his conclusions he presents a combination of qualities which not only does not suffer by any comparison but which was also peculiarly his own mr. justice miller once declared that the supreme court of the united states was so far as ordinary forms of power are concerned by far the feeblest branch or department of the government it must rely he added upon the competence and respect of the public for its just weight and influence and it may be confidently asserted that neither with the people nor with the country at large nor with the other branches of the government has there ever been found wanting that respect and confidence the circumstance that this statement of the learned justice himself one of the brightest ornaments of the tribunal of which he spoke has been received with general assent affords the strongest proof that the successors of the great chief justice and his associates have in no way fallen short of the measure of their trust for no matter how deeply the court may as an institution have been planted in the affection of the people and no matter how important it may be to the operation of our system of government its position and influence could not have been preserved had its members been wanting either in character in conduct or in attainments authorities chief justice Marshall and address by Mr. Justice story eulogy on the life and character of John Marshall by Horace Benny John Marshall by Alan B. Magruder American Statesman series the development of the Constitution as influenced by Chief Justice Marshall by Henry Hitchcock John Marshall by J.B. Thayer the Supreme Court of the United States by W.W. Willoughby John Marshall by C.F. Libby Chief Justice Marshall by John F. Dillon Mr. Justice Bradley Century Magazine December 1889 and cases in the reports of the Supreme Court of the United States as follows Where V. Hilton 3 Dallas 199 Marbury V. Madison 1 Krantz 137 Cohen's V. Virginia 6 Wheaton 264 McCullough V. Maryland 4 Wheaton 316 421 Gibbons V. Ogden 9 Wheaton 1 Schooner Exchange V. McFadden 7 Krantz 116 Foster V. Nelson 2 Peters 253 American Insurance Company V. Cantor 1 Peters 511 U.S. V. Percheman 7 Peters 51 Johnson V. McIntosh 8 Wheaton 543 The Antelope 10 Wheaton 66 11 Wheaton 413 The Grand Para 7 Wheaton 471 The Venus 8 Krantz 253 299 The Commersen 1 Wheaton 382 Church V. Hubbard 2 Krantz 187 Rose V. Himaly 4 Krantz 241 Brown V. United States 8 Krantz 110 End of Section 20 End of Beacon Lights of History, Volume 11, American Founders by John Lord