The Portland daily press., 1901-02-19

feuerat power
10 zee IL 20 believe; ana so Henry
Adams, in describing the scene when
Marshall administered the oath Of oiiife to
j eiferson sc his Eret inauguration, bri1gs
out the issues between them In the sharp
est lines;
"ln this first appearance Of John Mar
shall ns CHIEF Justice TO administer the
cath Of office lay the dramatic climax Of
the Inauguration. The retiring bresl-
cent, acting Tor what he supposed 20 be
the best interests OF the country, by one
Of his laat acts of power. deliberately In
banded TO psrpetuats the principles OF his
administration, placed at the head OF the
judiciary, for life, a man as obnoxious TO
jefferson as the blttaraat New England
Calvinist could have been; for he be-
longed to thAt GLASS Of conservative Nir-
ginians whose devotion to washington,
and whose education IN the common law,
caused them TO hold Jefferson and his
theories IN antipathy. The new Presi-
dent and his two secretaries were political
philanthropists, bent on restricting the
powers OF the national government In the
interests OF human liberty. The Chief
Justice, man who In grasp OF mind and
Gtendiness Of pnrposs had no superior,
perhaps no equal, was bent on enlarging
the powers OF government in the interests
OF justice ami nationality As they stood
face TO face on this threshold OF their
power. each could foresee that the contest
between them would end only with life.
Nevertheless, he continues, this
great man nourished one weakness.
Pure In life, broad In mind. ana the de.
spair OF bench and bar for the unswerv-
Ing certainty OF his legal method; almost
i1olizsd by these who stood nearest him,
and loving warmly in return, this excel
lent and amia ble man clung to one rooted
prejudice; he detested Thomas jefferson
I.o regarded with quiet, uuspoken, but
immovable anti pathy, the character and
doings of the philosopher standing before
him, about to take the oath TO preserve,
protect and defend the constitution. NO
argument or entreaty aff 20 ted his convic-
tiUn that Jefferson was not an honest
man. by weakening the oitic5 OF Presl-
don't be VIII increase bis personal power,
were Marshalls words, written at this
time; the morals Of the author OF the
letter to Mazzei cannot he pure Jeffer'
son In return regarded Marshall with
repugnAnoe tinRed bv shade OF some
deeper feeling, almost akin TO fear. 'The
judges inveterecy is profound be once
wrote, 'and his mind OF that gloomy
maIignity which will never let him fore
go the opportunity OF satiating 1t on q
victim
But Jeffersonianism, as 1t came at issue
with Marshall, died before the close OF
JetIerson's first administration. Its collin
was made by jackson in his struggle
the Civil war, while Marshall's work en-
dures to the day OF this one hundredth an
niversary. Jefferson had both the sword
and the purse, while Marshall had neither
de could appeal only TO the sober thought
Of the country, commencing his appeals
at period when the federal courts were
attacked by fierce ana continued tenn
pest, sweeping over the hills and through
the valleys, with a volume and persisten-
ey never since equalled or approached.
Nevertheless, McMaster shows that the ia-
sues made by JeffersoD were drowned out,
even before the close OF bis first admins
tration. indeed, he writes that before
j Jefferson was CHOSEN President, on the
tie developing in the House of Kepresen-
tatives, Burr refused to be sconciliated by
the Federalists, while Jefferson gave
them assurances that their wishes cores
ponded with his own. The historian fur
ther writes OF his reelection, when the
FedeGRkists secured bur fourteen ELECTORAL
votes:
'tThe President was greatly delighted.
The two parties which had once contend
ed with such violence, he wrote friend,
have almost wholly melted into one, But
the cause OF this melting he strangely
misunderstood. The Federalists he be-
nsved nad come over to the Republicans.
But the truth was, the Republicans mad
made great strides toward Federalism
a.
serve state rights, to lessen executive In.
nuence, to oonstrue the constitution
strictly In acoordanos with the principles
laid down in the Virginia and Kentucky
resolutions OF 179S and 1853. Did they
do so? The most bigoted Federalist could
not say they aid" 1.-THE great mass OF
the men who, Ia 1900, voted for Aoams,
could in 1894 see no reason whatever for
voting against Jefferson. Scarcely Fed
erai institution was missed. Not Fed
sral principle had besn condemned They
ssw the debt, the bank, the navy still pre-
served; they saw u broad construction Of
the constitution, strong government ex-
ercising the inherent powers OF sovereign
ty, paying small regard to the rights Of
states, and growing more and more
national day by day. and they gave IL a
hearty support, as a government Adminis-
tered on the principles for which, ever
since tbs constitution was in force, they
mad contended"
This was the demonstration OF a rsao-
tIon in favor of the permanent acknowl-
ed cement of the constitutional principles
maintained by Marshall, whoEe power
and success in perpetuaSing them We for
mally recognize today.
During the century Europe has been
oonstitutionally revolutionized, ana the
Kaleidoscope OF its map has been oom-
pIetely changed. Old hags have disap.
peared, and new flags, to some extent,
have taken their places. The United
States, also, have passed through the
throes of one OF the greatest civil strifes or
modern times; yet the language OF the Su-
pIeme Court as uttered through Chief JUS
tice Waite, hr. Justice Miller, and other
justices W no have spoken for It subsequent
ly through all these great commissions,
merely repeat what was said by Marshall.
A comparison carefully made, and stated
in q summary manner, between the
stability of constitutional principles In
the United States during the last cen-
tury, and the Instability of constitutional
principles elsewhere in the Civilized
world, leaves a conviction which startles
ali superficial understandings In references
thereto.
1t is said the constitution has been
changed in its essential features by
amendments. An amendment is oonsti-
tut,onal; and, therefore. we might set ur
technical answer to this. But we put
it on broader grounds. An amendment
TO the constitution in violation of its fun
damental principles would be, in every
Just sense, an essential change; but none
OF that nature have been made. The
earlier amendments were In truth part
OF the original constitution. Then came