John Marshall. strength and grandeur of the Constitution ve must never forget the part borne by the bar — among others by Wirt, and Dallas and Dexter, by Pinckney and Ogden and Mason, by Binney and Sargeant, by Livingston and Wheaton, by Martin and Rodney and Rawle, by Taney and by Webster; and the reciprocal confidence, regard and affection which ex isted between the Bench and the Bar in those memorable years of our judicial history should never be forgotten. It was only such an atmosphere which could have emboldened Mr. Wirt to indulge in flights of imagina tion when addressing the Judges, and it was not only with courteous attention but with an entire appreciation of their beauty that the Court listened to him when during the trial of Burr he described, in his vivid imagery, the startling change in the nature of Blennerhasset from his not permitting the winds of summer to visit his wife too roughly to allowing her "to shiver at midnight on the banks of the Ohio, and mingle her tears with the torrents that froze as they fell." The Chief Justice has himself told us of the enjoyment of the Court of Mr. Pinckney's argument in the case of the Nereide: "With a pencil dipped in the most vivid colors and guided by the hand of a master, a splendid portrait has been drawn of a single figure, composed of the most discordant materials of peace and war. The skill of the artist was exquisite — the garb in which the figure was presented was dazzling." During Mr. Webster's argument on behalf of Dartmouth College he faltered and said: "It is, as I have said, a small college — and yet there are those who love it;" and here the feelings which he had thus far succeeded in keeping: down broke forth. Every one saw it was wholly unpremeditated—a pressure on his heart that sought relief in tears. "The court room during those two or three min utes presented an extraordinary spectacle. Chief Justice Marshall, with his tall and gaunt figure, bent over as if to catch the slightest whisper. Mr. Justice Washington also leaned forward with an eager, troubled
215
look, and the remainder of the Court pressed as it were towards a single point. It is quite apparent, from these instances, that the conception of Chief Justice Marshall of the dignity of his great office in no manner interfered with his appreciation of the as sistance to be derived from the arguments of counsel, or of his enjoyment of their elo quence. His own lofty standard of the judicial character was, however, never relaxed.1 MARSHALL'S RELATIONS WITH HIS COL LEAGUES ON THE SUPREME BENCH.
A few words may ... be said in re gard to his relations with his colleagues on the Supreme Bench. It is not uncommon to speak of the Court as though it were com posed of Marshall alone. In fact, he had divers able and efficient co-laborers, and he himself would have been the last man to dis parage the value of their assistance. His prominence in the public mind is due, not merely to the general opinion that he was intrinsically the ablest of the Judges, but also to the fact that he acted as the mouth-piece of the Court in a very large proportion of cases. According to Mr. Hitchcock's fig ures, Marshall, during his thirty-four years of service, delivered the opinion of the Court in nearly half of all the cases decided, and de livered the opinion in more than half of the cases upon questions of constitutional law. Undoubtedly the Chief Justice was a great power in the consultation room and had im mense influence over his associates. But that influence was due to force of intellect and character; not to obstinacy, nor to a dispo sition to treat a difference of legal opinion as a matter of personal offense. To the extent of his influence both friends and foes can be summoned to testify. In 1810, Jeffer son, writing to President Madison, advo cating the appointment of Tyler to the Su preme Court in case an expected vacancy should occur, said: "It will be difficult to find a character of firmness enough to pre 1 Honorable Wayne MacVengh, of Washington, D. C., formerly Attorney-General of the United States.
