New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-11-21

websters part in the Massachusetts Constltu-
tionaI Convention of 1920 reads For twenty
years he had been studying what he we'll called
the nature and constitution of society and gov
eminent In this country and now, for the first
time, found an occasion to state his opinions at
length. The speech on the judiciary, that on re-
Iigion as a qualification for office holding, and
above all, that property as the basis or rep
resentation in the Senate. were much admired.
and carried conviction to his listeners" And
there follows not one word to tell what his opin-
ions on those important subjects were. II MS
work in that convention. for which he had been
preparing for many years, has any slghlH-
canoe worth mentioning at all, 1t is TO be fouhd
in the principles which he expounded not In the
bare record of the fact that he expounded some
Particularly important is his view OF representa-
ton which at that time he made prevail out
which has since been totally discarded in this
country Taking his stand on the premise that
with two legislative bodies difference in origin
was necessary to the perfect operation of the
system he argued that since the electorate for
both in Massachusetts the same, the dis
tinction between the houses as representatives
Of varied interests could best be made by appor-
tioning the Senate districts, not according TO
population but according to taxable property,
thus giving property interests, but not indi-
vidual property owners, weight In the state. lie
opposed religious tests for office holding not on
general principles. but, true TO his conservative
and conforming nature, on grounds OF eXpedt-
ency Mr. McMaster's statement about these
matters is also inaccurate well as inadequate.
BY his speech on the judiciary, which de-
voted to limiting the legislative power to re-
move judges without assigning cause, Webster
did not carry conviction. His amendments were
all lost.
Equally uncomprehending are the references to
Webster's work a lawyer. We learn that he
was great lawyer and exercised a powerful in
huence IN interpreting the constitution and de-
termining the powers of national and State gov
ernments. but what he accomplished. what our
Jurisprudence owes to him, are nowhere told.
The Dartmouth College case Is merely men
toned once and so far as Mr.. McMaster is con-
cerned, we should never know that Webster was
the first great lawyer TO maintain before the
Supreme Court the doctrine that Congress was
not limited by the constitution in governing
Territories-a vital question OF time. Nor
should we know anything of Websters mastery
exposition OF the principles of popular govern
ment in the Rhode Island cases. which may
serve for all time as an answer to the ''sQuatter
sovereignty" mob rule theorists who in
lynching resumption by the people of their
delegated powers" and in a community's disre-
gard for law q soveregns superiority to rules of
his making. IT is worth while at this day to
realize clearly that, though power is with the
people, it is not with masses of the people, and
not even with the whole people, except as they
exercise it through the agency of previously
established laws, and to remember that It was
Webster who, at a critical period, both
executive officer and later advocate, up
held legitimate government against anarchy
claiming the authority Of a popular mandate.
The principle that no State can throw off its
~
than the principle that no mass Of people may,
except by revolution, free themselves from com
plete obedience to their established authority.
and the latter principle more needs emphasis to-
day. Likewise no mention Is made Of the in
teresting If extra-legal defence Of Christianity
in the Girard will case which has peculiar sig
nifcance in revealing his character and tenn
permanent, and which contributed much to his
popularity among conservative and pious people.
In fact aside from the account Of Webster's
boyhood and early manhood, Mr.. McNIaster
gives little attention TO anything but the obvious
elements Of his subjects political life, his great
occasional orations. his debates. his diplomatic
achievements and his longing for the Presi-
dency We could we'll have spared the account
OF his Journeys and receptions and toastings for
a more discriminating account OF the man him
self and Of what is enduring Of his work His
personal weaknesses, except the weakness for
the Presidency and his resentment at being
passed by. are largely ignored. We learn moth
ing of his carelessness in money matters. his
lack OF nice taste in accepting tributes from
those whose interests he served, his early gen
crosby and late selfshness about giving credit
to those who helped him. particularly noticeable
his refusal to allow the publication Of his cor
respondence with Story. And VIC see practically
nothing of his private life and home pursuits.
his keen observation or his quiet humor-fOr
hurnor he had. as is seen in his letters, despite
the solemnity Of his public appearance.
Anybody who writes OF Webster must Of
necessity draw upon the rich store OF material
gathered by George Tic1nor Curtis. Mr.. Nc
Master has done this to extent which would
have justified acknowledgment of the debt that
he in common with other students of Webster,
owes to the earlier writer. But the OF
Mr. Curtis is not once mentioned in Mr.. Nc
Masters pages.