wherein has been elaborately deposited the mere skeleton of history. Marshall's leading characteristics were those of true greatness,- simplicity and directness, with an entire absence of pretense or affectation. He never made it possible for any man to speak better of him than he

deserved.

On January 31, 1801, he was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which position he held until his death, July 6, 1835. I will not dwell upon the full chronology of the honors that were bestowed upon him; they are known to every school-boy. Whether the place he filled was great or small in the estimation of men, he made it great by the strength of his personality.

There were strong rivalries among the public men of Marshall's day. He and Jefferson were never at harmony, although Jefferson was the more critical and censorious of the two. In his way he was as great as Marshall, yet with some minor weaknesses of character not apparent in Marshall. As the author of the Declaration. of Independence, and in the part he played in the drama of the Revolution and in the reconstruction period following it, he was second only to the great Washington, in the estimation of the people. He was bold and daring in his views, and more far-sighted than any of his associates except Hamilton. He had the paradoxical personality of a democratic aristocrat. In social position he was a Virginia country gentleman, with every inducement to respect his class and uphold its privileges. Yet he was always in rebellion against this class, and manifested a passionate love of the people and of a pure democracy from which every trace of feudalism and patrician privilege should be eliminated. In Virginia, he proposed measures for the disestablishment of the church

and for complete religious freedom, and abolishing the laws of entail and primogeniture. Himself a slaveholder, he hated slavery as an aristocratic institution, and he advocated a bill forbidding the importation of slaves into Virginia. When Congress was legislating for the Northwest Territory, he framed a clause interdicting slavery in this territory after the year 1800, in almost the exact language of our Thirteenth Amendment. His theories were almost diametrically opposed to those of his great rival Hamilton. The cleavage line between them became strongly marked when they were together in Washington's cabinet. From that time on party alignment was that of Federalist and Democrat; of States Rights and Centralized Government. Jefferson believed ardently in the people; Hamilton had a certain distrust of popular government, founded on the belief that it would never realize the anticipations of its advocates, and would of necessity have many defects and weaknesses. He believed in a strong National government, with power to enforce all measures for its wellbeing, even against the will of the States. Jefferson believed in.States Rights, so called. Practically, he proved that he was ready to go far in opposition to his own theories. Jefferson and his following believed that the Hamiltonian view would lead to the destruction of the rights of the States. Washington seemed to occupy middle ground between these two opposing schools, with an inclination towards the Federalist side. As soon as peace came, he saw that the Confederation had no governmental power. He spoke of the contempt that would be felt for us abroad, when it was seen that the States were sovereigns or not as best suited their purposes; “in a word, that we were one Nation to-day, and thirteen to-morrow."

Marshall held to this opinion, and no doubt much of his labor thereafter in construing the powers of the National Government was inspired by his experience and observation of this period of weakness and imbecility. The States were jealous of each other and jealous of any government they might jointly establish. Marshall was really a conservative Federalist, more of a Democrat than Washington, not so much of a Democrat as Jefferson. While Washington lived, Hamilton moulded the new government his way. Jefferson was the greater of the two in his ability to win and hold the people. He harmonized himself with them, and was always ready to go with them a little in order to induce them to go with him as far as he wished. He followed, in order that he might lead. Out of power he was a radical, the terror of those who believed in the established order; in power he was a careful and prudent conservative, acting in the main wisely and justly. He presents in this, not the only instance in history of the sobering influence of power and responsibility upon the radical, who before was a volcano of fierce and startling declamation. When he became President he speedily recovered from his fear of the dangers of a strong government. In some ways he seemed to have had a marvelous foresight. He sent the Lewis and Clark expedition to explore the territory northwest of the Louisiana purchase, in 1804, and thus laid the foundation for our claims to the country on the Columbia river. He saw at least some of the potentialities of the Louisiana purchase, and closed the bargain for it with the First Consul, hurriedly and secretly. This was an act of daring statesmanship that collided directly with the States Rights doctrine as to the limited powers of the Federal Government. It is doubtful whether

Hamilton, in Jefferson's place, would have dared to go as far, for it was thought to be an exercise of power outside of the Constitution. Jefferson could so act, because he knew his own power with the people and that he could justify his course to them. As to this and other measures, long before his administration closed, we find Jefferson sitting in the seat of the Federalist and not afraid. It is said that he inspired the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, which declared the extreme doctrine of States Rights, yet during his administration he was so busy building up the powers of government that he overlooked them. At the same time he was criticising Marshall severely for the Federalistic trend of his decisions. The discredit attached to the alien and sedition laws, and the success of Jefferson's administration, caused the slow disappearance of the Federalist party. Its existence was in a measure useless, for its work was being done by the Democratic party. But the ghostly Cassandra of States Rights would not down. It croaked balefully, first with one party and then with the other. Of all propagandas, it has been the most mercenary and changeable. Now it turns up in New England, now in Pennsylvania, now in South Carolina, and then again in highly virtuous Wisconsin. It presided at the birth of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions; it was the leading spirit of the whisky rebellion in Pennsylvania; it shrieked with the New England Federalists in the days of the Hartford convention when Massachusetts was seriously contemplating seceding from the Union; it defied Jackson in South Carolina, and inspired the nullification of the fugitive slave law in Wisconsin. Democrat, Federalist, Republican, Whig,- the advocate of States Rights and the advocate of a strong National government, have alVOL II-27

ternated, and veered and shifted, and stolen each others' places, and have kept countenance through it all with marvelous effrontery. Sometimes this magniloquent phrase played comedy, sometimes tragedy. The last act of comedy that we need consider here, is Jackson issuing his proclamation against the nullifiers of South Carolina, and threatening to hang them if they persisted in their course, and being complimented therefor by all the old Federalists, who had thus seen the fullness of national salvation.

Disraeli said of the wars and hatreds of nations, "All is race." So in the world of politics, all is phrase. In the Kingdom of Fools, the phrase-monger is the chief potentate, and the world of politics being the main province of this kingdom, the fools who infest it aver that all wisdom and righteousness is vested in the twaddle of a phrase. Thus presidents are made and unmade by a shibboleth of empty words. States Rights was for long a strutting phrase, the pet of politicians, and the god of both fools and knaves for three-quarters of a century; yet always like a tale told by an idiot, "full of sound and fury, signifying - nothing." nothing." As a toy to charm the people it was reasonably harmless at first. Finally it became linked with the slave-power in hideous brotherhood of crime and shame, and they died together, leaving as mute witnesses to the power of a phrase, a million graves. These things are suggested in passing; they help to enflesh the dry bones of history, and to quicken them with life. Much of this history proves how rare and precious and how remote from mortal ken is the jewel of consistency; like the Holy Grail of Knight Errantry, that none might secure save the pure in heart.

Through the turbulent unrest of this early time, Mar