New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-01-20
)OKS AND AUTHORS -

respect for the sovereign people and
10 quote their opinions as an evidence
OF truth. Tho latter is Of all things
the most destructive Of personal in
dependence and Of that weight Of
character which great man ought 10
possess A characteristic judgment,
which in itself explains the early de-
mise Of Federalism.
Marshall was no more sfraid Of the
people than Jefferson was. Probably
he was even less afraid of them than
jefferson. I'm that he was in advance
Of all his Fcderalist colleagues. To his
clear mind Federalism was of value
chiefly as q means OF creating a
structure OF nationality. not Of con
centrating power IN the hands Of the
banking and commercial interests OF
the seBcoast cities and in a small po-
litical cotcrie Of oficeholders repre-
senting those interests.
Mr.. Bevcrdgc rightly gives much
space to the struggle for the ratiiica-
tion Of the Federal Constitution a
struggle in which Marshall played n
leading part as member OF the
Virginia Constitutional Convention.
Through that ratification the nation
was born. But ratification was achieved
in the face Of great difficulties and
through the efforts OF a very small
minority Of the American people.
Mr. Bcveridges account OF the sue
cessful fight for ratification is admira-
BILE lie takes notice of the theory. set
up in Professor Boards "Economir
Origins Of JeGersonian Democracy
that the contest was one solely between
economic forces between the bankers.
the merchants and the holders OF the
deprecated Revolutionary debt certii-
Gates on the one hand, and the agra
riau interests on theS other. But he
rightly concludes that this theory holds
good only i'm part. There was power
ful element IN favor Of ratification
whose action was not controlled b.
economic motives. There were ardent
supporters Of the Constitution who
were for it simply because they wanted
TO create a strong central government
10 set the country's face toward the
goal OF complete nationality. Marshall
represented that element-the only
really constructive element IN the carl"
American community.
Il is therefore natural for his BIZ
ographer to discard Professor Boards
theory and to say:
While the fight over the Consti-
tuition was partly an economic
class struggle, il was, in another
and n larger phase, a battle be
tween those who thought nationally
and those who thought provncially.
In hostile array were two centrs
ideas: one, of strong national
government. acting directly on
men: the other. Of a weak confed-
Grated league, merely suggesting
action to the states. II was not
only an economic contest. but also,
and even more. "A conflict of those
TO whom liberty" meant unre-
strained freedom of action and
speech. against those 10 whom such
liberty" meant tumult and social
chaos.
Marshall has waited long for com
petent biographer one who could in
terpret his life work adequately ana
with a full understanding of the con
dtions 10 which he reacted and which
determined his political opinions and
career. Mr. Beveridge's two volumes
do Justice to their subject. They are
one of the most satisfactory contribu-
tions made in recent years TO the
critical exposition OF Revolutionary
and post-Revolutionary history.