retired at night to rest after the toils of the day were over without repeating the simple lines taught him by his mother when a child, beginning: "Now I lay me down to sleep." What simple, yet sublime faith, and the power of a mother's influence over the mind and character of her children, even when they have grown into manhood's estate, and occupy the first positions in the republic!

Many personal incidents of his life which illustrate his character are recorded, and which no doubt are familiar to most Georgians.

Our great Chief Justice was a very religious man. On one occasion he was riding through his native State of Virginia in a gig — a vehicle much used in those days and before reaching his destination he stopped for the night at a "tavern." One shaft of his gig had been broken and tied with a hickory withe, and his shabby personal appearance gave every indication of a plain countryman. At the hotel were stopping other guests, and among them several young lawyers. Seated around the office the discussion soon turned upon the Christian religion, and one of the young lawyers, evidently from his argument an atheist, was getting the better of his fellows. Turning finally to Marshall, who was unknown to the company, with an air of triumph, he asked of the "old man" what he thought of such things. "If," said an eye-witness, "a flash of lightning had struck in their midst from a clear sky, it would not have been more startling than the 'old man's' reply. They listened spell-bound for an hour as the great Chief Justice talked of the Christian religion as learnedly as if expounding some great constitutional question. Imagine the surprise of the young lawyers when they found that the eloquent and learned but

homely 'old man' was the great Chief Justice of the United States."

Few judges have ever presided for a longer period than Marshall. During his long incumbency of thirtyfour years, England had within that time four Chief Justices in the persons of Kenyon, Ellenborough, Tenterden and Denman, and four Lord Chancellors, Eldon, Erskine, Lyndhurst and Brougham. And he was Chief Justice during the administration of six of our most distinguished Presidents, namely: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson.

Marshall had many and varied characteristics. In his private life he was pure, plain and simple; in personal appearance, tall, lean, awkward and ungainly; a sincere Christian, an amiable, true friend. His domestic life was an ideal one. The death of his wife in 1831, to whom he was fondly attached, was a great blow, and he never fully recovered from the shock. When speaking of her afterwards to his friend Story, this great and strong man wept like a child. As a jurist he was profound and wise; always aimed at "strength" and attained it. His decisions are models of simplicity, wisdom, strength, justice, reason, logic and the law; and it is amazing with what apparent ease his keen analysis could make plain the most difficult problems.

Considering his great achievements and spotless character, the lofty example he set posterity in private and public life, it is eminently fit and proper in the beginning of this new century -on the centennial anniversary of his accession to the bench-that we meet in this temple of justice and do honor to his memory as it is being done throughout the nation. Wherever the English language

is spoken and American jurisprudence is studied and known, the name of Marshall will shine in the legal firmament, luminous as the stars in an unclouded night, and be cherished and revered in the hearts of Americans, for his purity of life and integrity of character, his statesmanship and pre-eminent legal attainments. History will perpetuate his memory and fame, and accord him a place among the great of earth, but history alone is not necessary to perpetuate it, for the remembrance of his greatness and goodness will linger and live always in the hearts of the American people.

Burton Smith, member of the John Marshall Day Committee of the American Bar Association, addressed the court, in part, as follows:

Address of Burton Smith.

When, one hundred years ago to-day, the solemn oath of office was taken by the fourth Chief Justice, John Marshall, he found a written Constitution to be construed, and a nation whose future was dependent on that construction. I say he found a nation whose future was dependent on that construction; this is scarcely true: he found what might become a nation, but what was then a heterogeneous mass of antithetical peoples, loosely held by a feeble bond.

Marshall's father was a man of education and reading, and under him the future Chief Justice read thoroughly and deeply the great classics of English and Roman literature; this in itself was a liberal education. But while a man of the people, he was also, like Washington and Madison, an intense believer in the necessity of strengthening the central government. He believed that if this

country should ever fall it would not be through the tyranny of the National Government, but through bonds so loose that States would draw away.

Upon the threshold he met the paramount issue which has made his reign upon the bench famous and a power for all time. It was, "Maintain the authority of the Federal Government."

The first great constitutional case decided by Marshall was that of Marbury v. Madison.

An epoch in the world's history! The highest court in the land asserts and exercises the right to declare void a law passed by the highest legislative body in the land, by the very law-makers who placed the judges of the court upon the bench. A bulwark of liberty and civilization, towering above all others erected by the Anglo-Saxon race! While this act was considered by President Jefferson a defiance of the executive and legislative branches of the government, the remarkable fact remains that, although Jefferson and Marshall were open, mutual opponents personal and political,—and neither made any effort to conceal it, nevertheless the first enunciation by the Supreme Court of its right to declare an act of Congress void constituted a refusal to interfere with Jefferson in his administration of the government.

But while Marshall never hesitated to hold void an act which he deemed unconstitutional, it must not be thought that he approached these questions with any feeling of passion or prejudice. In an opinion he says: "The question whether a law be void for its repugnance to the Constitution is at all times a question of much delicacy, which ought seldom, if ever, to be decided in the affirmative in a doubtful case. But the court, when impelled by duty to render such judgment, would be unworthy of its sta

tion could it be unmindful of the solemn obligations which that station imposes." Such language as he uses here, and in other cases, shows him to have been deeply impressed with the gravity and solemnity of constitutional issues.

A striking illustration of the continued difference in opinion on the question of Federalism was shown recently at a discussion of the celebration of this day. A number of gentlemen were present and two distinguished jurists of this State expressed their opinion of Marshall. One said, "Marshall's opinions made him an enemy of the Constitution and the nation, and his decisions destroyed one and sought to destroy the other." The other jurist replied, "Without Marshall there would have been neither Constitution nor nation; he preserved the Constitution and made the nation possible." Whatever we may think of Marshall's construction of the Constitution, this much is true: we are to-day living under that construction. From the necessary results of that construction there was no appeal save to the sword. That appeal was tried from '61 to '65, and the decision is final and irrevocable. Nor did Marshall ever extend the powers of the Federal court to invasions of private rights. He was deeply imbued with the necessity of a strong government, and believing that the forces in our Union possessed far more centrifugal than centripetal power, and believing also that the Constitution was intended to furnish the centripetal and counteract the centrifugal, he unwaveringly and in all cases stood by his convictions and maintained them in spite of all opposition, even though opposition often came in later days from the allies and friends of his youth, and even though towards the last the gallant band that had labored with