John Marshall. called "a great book lawyer." While he had a fair knowledge of the books, yet his strong est intellectual points were his intuitive per ception of justice, his wonderful power of analysis, and his faculty of close and logical reasoning. "Probably," says Professor Par sons, "the decisions of no (other) eminent Judge have so few citations of authorities.1' ... "It used to be said of him, that, when he had formed his conclusions, he would say to one of his colleagues, 'There, Story, is the law; now you must find the authorities.'" Story himself said: "When I examine a ques tion, I go from headland to headland, from case to case; Marshall has a compass, puts out to sea, and goes directly to his result." ("American Law Review," 436.) . . . If we seek a wider field of comparison, taking in the whole country and looking at statesmen as well as jurists, we shall find strong points of resemblance between Mar shall and Lincoln. Both have the same fac ulty of "embalming in one short happy phrase" an important principle; both go di rectly to the point; both are remarkable for their power of clearly stating the issue and working out a rcductio ad absurdnm of the opposing view. Cardinal Newman has said: "Half the controversies in the world are ver bal ones, and could they be brought to a plain issue they would be brought to a prompt termination. . . . When men un derstand what each other mean, they see, for the most part, that controversy is either superfluous or hopeless." Marshall and Lin coln had each the happy power of stating their own views, so as to make their meaning unmistakable. And they also had the power to analyze their opponent's statement and re duce it to its lowest terms; showing exactly what it amounted to and what its practical effect would be. A reply to their statements was generally a hopeless task. Years ago the Supreme Court of New TTampshire had announced the result arrived at in a case of great public interest, but their reasons had not yet been written out for pub lication in the reports. In this stage of the
227
matter one of the Judges was conversing with a legal friend as to the manner in which the views of the Court should be presented. His friend advised him to "write an opinion which the Selectmen could understand." Mar shall never needed such advice. . . . In what has been said of Marshall's judicial style, I wish to be understood as using the expression "style" in a larger sense than is sometimes attached to it. I mean something more than the selection of words, or the framing of sentences. I mean to include "the entire scheme" of the opinion, "the pro portion of the several parts to the whole and to each other." No writing can approach perfection, unless the author has "the sense of proportion, which the Greeks called by an expressive term, 'the art of measuring.'" This is to be found in Marshall. The space given to each topic is in proper ratio to its importance, and the arrangement is such that each topic is discussed in its proper place and discussed only once. But over and above all manifestations of intellectual ability, the opinions of Marshall evince a far higher characteristic, that of in tellectual honesty: or, as Martillean puts it in reference to John Stuart Mill, "intel lectual conscientiousness." There are no evasions of difficulties. Every point raised by counsel on the losing side is taken up and fully discussed. The workings of the mind of the great Chief Justice are laid bare. As was said of a great writer: "There is no veil, however thin, between the mind of the author and the mind of the public." There is not only great intellectual power, but also "absolute transparency of intellect." And this brings us to what is, after all, the great distinguishing feature in Marshall's life; the real secret of his extraordinary suc cess, fullv as much as his great intellect. And that is high personal character. There was a man behind the magistrate. John Mar shall was pre-eminently single-minded. His whole life was pervaded by an overpowering sense of duty and by strong religious princi ple. A firm believer in the Christian religion,
