was undertaken only because General Wash ington insisted that the perilous condition of the government demanded his services in Congress, Mr. Marshall declined the ten der by President Adams of a seat on the Bench of the Supreme Court, rendered va cant by the death of Air. Justice Iredell. The position was then offered to Bushrod Wash ington and by him accepted. After a vig orous and heated contest Mr. Marshall was elected.1 Mr. Marshall's next public service was as a member of the last Congress which sat in Philadelphia, meeting in December, 1799, and which body, so competent a judge as Horace Binney has declared, "was perhaps never excelled in the number of its accom plished debaters or in the spirit for which they contended for the prize of the public appro bation. In announcing the death of Wash ington, Mr. Marshall seems to have antici pated in some degree the doctrine afterwards associated with the name of President Mon roe. He declared that "Washington was the hero, the patriot, and the sage of Amer ica, and that more than any other agency he had contributed to found this wide-spread ing empire, and to give to the Western world independence and freedom. However improbable such an occurrence may now appear, it is undoubtedly true that Mr. Marshall changed the current of opinion upon a grave constitutional question by a speech in Congress, although it is true that his argument in the Robbins case so far from being an ordinary speech in debate has all the merit and nearly all the weight of a judi cial decision. It separates the executive from the judicial power by a line so distinct and a discrimination so wise that all men can understand and approve it. He demonstrated that, under the circumstances, the surrender of Robbins to the British authorities was an act of political power, which belonged to the executive department alone; and before the 1 Honorable W. C. Caldwell, Justice of the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
session closed he was privileged to teach his associates as well as his successors in Con gress, by a striking example, how, when the convictions of the individual conscience con flict with the behests of party, a true patriot will follow the former, in utter disregard of party discipline, and of possible calamitous consequences to his future political advance ment. Although a strong supporter of Pres ident Adams' administration, Mr. Marshall voted without hesitation, contrary to the earnest desire of the President and in direct opposition to all those with whom he was in general political accord. Believing that the second section of "The Alien and Sedition Laws" ought to be repealed, he voted ac cordingly, and it has long since been uni versally acknowledged that he was right. Among other lessons he had learned from Washington was this: "The spirit of party, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human spirit, but in governments of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy." * He was a man who believed that public office was a public trust, and amid all the rancor of party politics, in those early days of strife, the breath of slander never cast a stain upon his spotless reputation. It has been said that in him virtue seemed to have its visi ble representative. . . . It was well known that Marshall had little ambition for political preferment; on the contrary, he had a repugnance to a political career. He had entered politics largely against his will, and only from a sense of patriotic duty.2 Marshall's accurate knowledge of the wants of the people and the necessities of the times in which he lived, no less than his clear comprehension of the legitimate functions of government, fitted him to achieve distinc tion as a legislator no less than as a jurist. 1 Honorable Wayne MacVeagh, Washington. 2 Honorable William Pinkney Whyte.
