The sun., 1916-12-10

practice: tall, loose jointed, awkward
In gesture, but supremacy confident Of
his abilities. He spoke ito the judy
ment merely. and for the simple pur-
pose OF convincing" Wirt's son-in-
law Francis Gilmer, spoke OF his
clear, keen analysis; the fitness and
cogency Of his words, among which
none was superfuous; the humorous
simplicity" Of his reasoning. And Writ
again: In n bad cause his art con-
sisted in laying his premises so re-
motely from the point directly in de-
bate. or else in terms so general and
so spacious. that the hearer, seeing
no consequence which could be drawn
from them. was just as willing to admit
them as not; bur his premises once
admitted. the demonstration, however
distant. followed as inevitably as any
demonstration In Euclid"
The beauty of MIR. Beveridge's treat
ment OF this part OF the long story
Is that he shows us the cases In which
Marshall failed as well as those. so
much more numerous. in which he
succeeded, and best Of all. he e
Munford's delightful anecdotc of
Marshall and his friends in a disputa-
ton over a game at quoits. Marshall
challenged Parsbn Blair. each TO select
four partners. Marshall used heavy
brass quoits that nobody else could
throw: the other players used smaller
ones OF brass. Marshall "rang the
meg" and Blair threw his QUOT directly
over his opponents. Who had won
The point went TO debate before the
Barbecue Club, with a bottle OF cham
payne on the decision.
Marshall a-HGed solemnly: The first
one ringing tho meg won. unless his
adversary could knock of tho first
quot and put his own In its place.
Blair could not ride to heaven" on
Marshall's back. and, "cujus est
solum. ejus est usque ad cplum.'
Another debater argued that when two
adversary quoits were on the same
meg neither was victorious: as to the
Latin maxim. the ground was moi
Marshall's and he was as much n
"squatter" on II rs the Parson was on
Marshalls back. As 10 riding on
Marshalrs back. no one could stand IL
long; he was too much OF a Rosi-
mantle"
Whoever wants to know John Mar
shall must read B~everidge's book. Who
ever reads Beverldge's book will know
John Marshall rs thoroughly as ne
ran be known from his own utterances
and from the voluminous and well d.
versif1ed writings about him ny those
VINO admired him and those who did
not. There Is no document in the
case but this historian has run IL
down and used II for what II might
be worth. And as n historian. pre-
senting In finished form the bulky
product Of his labors. Mr.. Beverldre
proves possession Of the brilliancy Of
style which makes history pulse. This
history Is vivid. but II is not subiec-
tive or sensational. We call 1t n his
tory. not a biography. with intent:
for In giving his picture n background
Mr.. Beveridge has made n panorama.
In which II Is no small wonder that
Marshall. instead Of being obscured,
out 70 sharply individual.
The second volume Of this biography
opens with a long chapter on the In
fuence of the French Revolution on
America" II Is excellently done. but
we say again that there Is a super
fluffy of background" though It's de-
fence IL not impossible-or even very
difficult. In these two volumes Mr..
Beveridge reconstrnCts John Marshall
the man. In the remaining portion OF
the book. yet to appear. he will write
OF John Marshall tn. Chief Justice. II
will be a harder. dricr task. a greater
test. In the two volumes now avail
able the autborsbas dope bip,,o,S ,ro,a
as n hiographer. particularly by his un-
tagging maintenance OF n style so
bright. so fluent that we are fain "a
call IL gallant. And withal the matter
is such as to command serious atten-
ton n reward II well. We do not
believe any book OF / kind has come
Off an American press n this year that
is better worth having and holding.