Morris tribune., 1909-12-10


promulgated it and Daniel Webster argued for
| it, has made the decision matter for reverence
among the people at large, even though the in
justices which have resulted have been many.
The decision allowed legislatures to bind the
people to iniquitous contracts to continue, re-
! gardless of changing conditions long after the
makers of the iniquity had become dust. The
doctrine of unlimited vested rights was created.
In every attempt of municipality to free itself
from unjust and unfair contracts, in every en-
deavor of a state to regulate the corporations
was used to prevent the municipality state
from securing justice. The doctrines enunciat-
ed in the decision have been expanded to cover
all the needs of corporate monopoly when put
on it's Defense Gradually, however, the de-
cision has been losing it's reputation and value
before the assaults of legislatures which have
ldisregarded it's warnings, and been sustained.
Lately, attention has been called to the his
torical facts in connection with the decision,
and investigation robs the decision of all claim
to respect for law or learning. The case arose
over squabble between the Federalists and
anti -Federalists Of New Hampshire, each de-
string to control Dartmouth college through it's
trustees. The college was founded on charter
from the state, certain number of trustees be-
ing fixed, and these trustees were to choose a
president. At the time the trouble arose the
then president of the college became obnoxious |
to certain of the trustees, and they removed
him. His friends who were nti-Federalists, or
Jefersonian Democrats, succeeded in electing a |
governor and Legislature, and got law through
amending the charter of the college, increasing |
the number of trustees, and making 9th er
changes, the result desired being to put the old
president back The struggle had become a
bitter partisan and factional contest. The old
trustees contested the right Of the people, re-
presented by the Legislature, to change their |
charter. The supreme court of New Harnp-
shire, consisting of three of the ablest judges in
the country, unanimously sustained the legis-
lative action. The case then went to the federal
supreme court, consisting then of seven judges, |
Marshall being chief justice. 1t is we'll known
that Marshall had fierce partisan hatred of
the followers of Jefferson, and knowing this, |
Webster in his argument directly appealed to
the political prejudices of the old judge. He |
made it appear that the Jefersonians were
actuated by patisanship and he laid more stress
on politics than on law, Marshall and one of the |
justices were known to be for the old trustees, |
two other justices were for the Legislature, and |
the three others were also leaning toward |
sustaining the New Hampshire court Un-
fortunately the other side not as we'll re-
presented as the college, although it is evident
that if represented by archangels, Marshall
would not have been any different. He did not
know how to be fair toward those differing from
him. He the last hope of the old-time |
Federalists and he wanted to deal blow at the |
hated Jefersonians. The law on the side of the |
respondents so strong that in spite of
politics, when the case ended it was evident |
that the court stood five to two in favor of the |
could not brook this, and refused to have the |
matter settled then and there, but suspended
announcement of the courts decision for many
months In the meantime systematic cam
and Webster, was carried on to bring pressure
on the three judges who it was thought could
be changed. Every possible influence was |
brought to bear, and the affair became entirely |
partisan and political proposition, founded on
the political squabble in New Hampshire and |
the desire of Marshall to "get even with Teffer-
son by preventing some of the followers of the
Sage of Monticello from electing the president
of small college. Justice and law were not i
even secondary considerations, and for petty