New-York tribune., 1885-02-24
the limited States in Marbury vs.. Madison' Ouo,

Juot;oo Narsboll nres,dinQ was by no means setteo
at the time of the Virginia decision anu !. ]" s"
that the case of Hawkins VS.. Hamper was THO nIs'
In the United States in which it came under rev'o"
It is hardly necessary to say, however Una. 'u"HV
TYLER was not habitually IN accord Win Maiena
on constitutional questions. and that tne oIs.in.
guished services and professional rank Oh tno ono
Justice receive scanty and grudging recoeni'.on -.
this obiurgatory book. Ono of the salient points Oh
d,aerence between them was on the authority OF
the common law in this country. Marshall held
that the common law, brought hither by the colon
sts persisted IN all the colonies after the eeparaton
from Great Britain, except in so far as II was re-
pcaled or changed by legislative enactment lyier'
rs n State rights man and an Anglophobist, NAM
tanned that the revolution reduced the Americans 10
a state of nature absOlving them flOm allegancet 10
all laws not lie their own by express adoptioh'
and that the common law consequently was not IN
force here except where 1t had been declared 30 ny
State authority. Tyler's doctrine has gone out o,
vogue with many other delusons OF his school, ana
we think it must be admitted by all dlspassioha.c
readers that the paper quoted by Mr. Lyon yer I'D
which the Judge warns us against administering
our free republican government on the prihcipieS
of "a rigid and high toned monarchy" is nndgnihed'
inconclusiye and unworthy of its respectapie
author. Once the differences between Marshall ana
TYLER on the common law question were pronounced
in court when both read opinions in Livingston Vs.
Jefferson although there was no decision Oh inc IS
sue at that time the case going of on technicaity
This was willie Tyler was District Judge. - Doubt
less" saws the biographer. the Chief justice lci'
not over comfortable i'll having seated by MN man
who had always made it his pride and MS prihcipie
to depend upon the native vlgor OF his mhd' anu
who born and bred in the maritime law-if may
so speak had confirmed and strengthened MS
powers by nearly twenty-five years experience on
the bench. Rely upon it, Judge Tyler was no mi'h
and water associate 1t was 10 difficult task lor
him to pierce through the lnten ions OF Marsholi'
and tear away every cobweb @ h ID woven 10 ca'ch
tho public fiy.n Well. if Mar ha did trenble when
he saw Tyler take a seat beside him, we can only
say that the incident has been very artfully con-
cealei. History cannot be too grateful to Mr. Lyon
TYLER for reducing the Chief Justice to his proper
place after he has usurped fame for three-quarers
of a century.
The volume now before us follows the career OF
the second John Tyler to his election as Nlce-FTeSl-
dent in $40. 1t stops short therefore just as is
second hero becomes person OF consequence anu
we NAV as we'll wait for the second volume, now
in the press before we complete our review or 1T.
We nav say however, that it gives doubtless ac-
curate statement of of the most notorious OF
Tyler's political performances namely. his opposi-
ton to the force-pocy Of Jackson i'll the nuIlihca-
tion crisis TYLER regarded notification as blunder
because he did not believe that South Carolina would
he supported In her course by other States; but 1t
does not appear that he opposed it on principle
while hc did resist the enforcement policy with all
his might "AsStatc veto" he declared, was pref
cradle any day TO a despoism which repclled the
complaints OF large minority of the people ana
whole section of the country by threats OF arms
rat her than a removal of the cause oi injury Inc
proper remedy therefore if a law was resisted was
not to compel obedience but 10 change the law
The duty of the President was to submit to the nnl
liiers There is old authority for this theory OF the
executive functions: " II You meet the prince III
the night you may STAY him." says DogDcrfy
marry not without the prince be willing; Tor III
deed the watch ought t. offend no man; ami 1t Is
an offence TO stay a man against hrs WILL "hat
enormous evils were destined TO flow from this low
conception of the national authority almost every
body except Mr.. Lyon G.. Tyler seems now to un-
derstand The disgraceiul end of the ex-lresidcnts
public career was logically prepared thirty years IN
advance. The full story of his famous action III the
Bank controversy is yet TO come bat III TINS volume
Mr. TYLER lays an elaborate foun atlon for the de-
fence by showing that Tyler was always against
the Bank on principle and that while the issue was
carefully kept out ot the canvass OF 1910 he never
withdrew or concealed ihis earlier expressions OF
opinion on that question.
A review of past political controversies is often
interesting ana important in connection with the
history of parties and the of constitutional
development but such review ought to be made
| u the full light of subsequent experience. lhe
period Of Mr. Tylcrs highest activity saw the.iorn-
| alton of the Wing and Democratic parties and the
beginnings of the mighty struggle which was to end
in the civil war 1t deserves therefore careful and
| dispassi onate study M Lyon Tyler has written
about il in great detail but with little profit, be
cause he mas brought into his narrative the prcIu
dices suspicious, and bal tcmpcrs of particularly
vituperative period. If our readers will imagine
a rampant party-man of the time OF Jackson getting
up from fifty years sleep, graspIng a bundle of
hicbmOnd EHqairrs, and prancing into the arena oi
affairs with rage which even the graveyard Inou ld
and cold tombstone have not been able To repress,
they may form some idea of the eject of his re-
inarkablc history of the Times Of the Tylera' 1t
| is simply an anachronsm.