site to what you might fairly have expected from his first
appearance and tones. And when you have compounded these inconsistencies
in your imagination, and united qualities which on common occasions
nature seems to hold asunder, you will, perhaps, begin to form some idea
of what Mr. Pinkney is."
Such was the man whom Marshall, Story, and Taney all considered the
greatest lawyer who had ever appeared before the Supreme Court.
At the close of the War of 1812, Marshall, though he had decided many
important questions of International Law, * nevertheless found himself
only at the threshold of his real fame. Yet even thus early he had
indicated his point of view. Thus in the case of the United States vs.
Peters, * * which was decided in 1809, the question before the Court was
whether a mandamus should issue to the United States District Judge of
Pennsylvania ordering him to enforce, in the face of the opposition of
the state Government, a decision handed down in a prize case more than
thirty years before by the old Committee of Appeals of the Continental
Congress. Marshall answered the question affirmatively, saying: "If the
legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of
the courts of the United States and destroy the rights acquired under
those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery,
and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the
instrumentality of its own tribunals."
* Two famous decisions of Marshall's in this field are those in
the Schooner Exchange vs. McFaddon et al, 7 Cranch, 116, and the case of
the Nereide, 9 ib., 388.
* * 5 Cranch, 136.
Marshall's decision evoked a warm protest from the Pennsylvania
Legislature and led to a proposal of amendment to the Constitution
providing "an impartial tribunal" between the General Government and the
States; and these expressions of dissent in turn brought the Virginia
Assembly to the defense of the Supreme Court.
"The commission to whom was referred the communication of the governor
of Pennsylvania [reads the Virginia document]... are of the opinion that
a tribunal is already provided by the Constitution of the United States,
to wit; the Supreme Court, more eminently qualified from their habits
and duties, from the mode of their selection, and from the tenure of
their offices, to decide the disputes aforesaid in an enlightened and
impartial manner than any other tribunal which could be creat
|