Thirty-four of those cases, and by far the most important, were decided by the Chief Justice, and not one of those decisions has been overruled by the Supreme Court of the United States. The basic idea upon which these decisions are founded is that the people of this country are sovereign, and that the grants of power made by them to each department of the government are sovereign grants, limited to the terms of the grant and the powers directly conferred, or such as are incidental and necessary to carry into effect the powers conferred. Against such construction were arrayed those who contended that the States in their State capacity were equally sovereign, and that in case of conflict National sovereignty must yield to State sovereignty. To this contention Marshall replied that the sovereignty of both the States and General Government rested in the people, and that when the people in their sovereign capacity declared that "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," that delegation of power within the scope of the terms by which it was granted was supreme, and that to the Supreme Court of the United States was granted the ultimate determination of all questions arising under that Constitution, and as to the existence and scope of those powers, whenever the same were called in question.

In the case of Marbury v. Madison he said:

"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as in their opinion shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis

on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

"This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers."

This admirable and comprehensive definition of the powers conferred by the Constitution was more elaborately and fully expressed in his opinion in the case of M'Culloch v. The State of Maryland et al.

These two cases well illustrate the clearness, simplicity and conclusiveness of the reasoning of Marshall upon the proposition as to what the Constitution is and its binding force upon all subjects and people embraced within its terms. Need I apologize for a quotation from the case of Loughborough v. Blake to illustrate with what clearness and precision he applied the provisions of the Constitution ?

"The eighth section of the article gives to Congress the 'power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,' for the purposes thereinafter mentioned. This branch is general, without limitation as to place. It consequently extends to all places over which the government extends. If this could be doubted, the doubt is removed by the subsequent words which modify the grant. These words are, that all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.' It will not be contended that the modification of the power extends to places to which the power itself does not extend.

The power, then, to lay and collect duties, imposts and excises may be exercised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great Republic, which is composed of States and Territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania; and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Constitution, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties and excises should be observed in the one than the other. Since, then, the power to lay and collect duties, which includes direct taxes, is obviously co-extensive with the power to lay and collect duties, imposts and excises, and since the latter extends throughout the United States, it follows that the power to impose direct taxes also extends throughout the United States."

Did time permit I would be glad to refer to and quote from his lucid and convincing opinions in many other cases, notably Brown v. The State of Maryland; Cohens v. The State of Virginia; Fletcher v. Peck; Gibbons v. Ogden, and Dartmouth College v. Woodward, in each of which was hotly contested by eminent lawyers the right of the Supreme Court to annul an act of the State legislature violative of the Constitution of the United States, and also the right of the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse a judgment of the court of last resort within a State. The unerring sagacity, great ability and inflexible determination of Marshall to protect the people in the enjoyment of their rights, and to protect them from any encroachment upon the same from any and all sources, and to preserve those rights, and to confine those

authorized to exercise any and all rights delegated by the Constitution strictly within the limits of the powers granted, has been the chief source from which our country has derived its greatness, happiness and prosperity.

The decisions of the great Chief Justice during his long service upon the bench were clear, cogent and conclusive, whatever might be the question involved for determination. Although associated with him upon the bench were a number of men who, during their service there, immortalized themselves as judges, it is nevertheless true that Marshall, especially in the determination of constitutional questions, was practically the court. Mr. Justice Story, who next to Marshall was at that time the greatest judge associated with him upon the bench, in an article contributed by him for The North American Review said:

"We resume the subject of the constitutional labors of Chief Justice Marshall. We emphatically say of Chief Justice Marshall. For though we would not be unjust to those learned gentlemen who have from time to time. been his associates upon the bench, we are quite sure they would be ready to admit, what the public universally believe, that his master mind has presided in their deliberations, and given to the results a cogency of reasoning, a depth of remark, a persuasiveness of argument, a clearness and elaboration of illustration, an elevation and comprehensiveness of conclusion, to which none others offer a parallel. Few decisions upon constitutional questions have been made in which he has not delivered the opinion of the court; and in those few the duty devolved upon others to their own regret, either because he did not sit in the case, or from motives of delicacy abstained from taking an active part."

During his long term upon the bench he was with the minority of the court in the decision of but one case and that the case of Ogden v. Saunders, and there are few good lawyers of the present day who will not say that in that case the opinion of the minority should have prevailed. No higher encomium could be uttered of any man than that now universally bestowed upon him, especially by the bench and bar, that, as pioneer jurist in the field of constitutional law, the paths marked out by him were always straight, and in his decisions there was no semblance of error. It has been truly said of him, "He found the Constitution paper, and he made it power; he found it a skeleton, and clothed it with flesh and blood." What greater honor could any man desire than to be able to say, as Marshall could, compare the Supreme Court of the United States as it was when I took my seat and when I left it. Let the intelligent judgment of any man answer the question, why the difference? Well might Adams say, as he did to a son of the Chief Justice, that "this gift of John Marshall to the people of the United States was the proudest act of his life."

Gladstone declared that "the American Constitution is the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man." And we may well say that this is a great utterance of a great man; but when this declaration was made our Constitution had been vitalized and its immortality assured by the great Chief Justice providentially furnished to us for that purpose. So long as this Constitution remains and our Supreme Court continues in its interpretation of that Constitution to follow in the footsteps of John Marshall, we need have no fears for the future, and our Nation will continue to