feet ten, and weighed a little less than two hundred. His manner was
grave, deliberate and dignified; and his sturdy face, furrowed with lines
of sorrow, made a profound impression upon all before he had spoken a
word. He had arrived at an age when the hot desire to succeed had passed.
For no man can attain the highest success until he has reached a point
where he does not care for it. In oratory the personal desire for victory
must be obliterated or the hearer will never award the palm.

Hayne was a very bright and able speaker. He had argued the right of a
State to dissent from, or nullify, a law passed by the House of
Representatives and Senate, making such law inoperative within its
borders. His claim was that the framers of the Constitution did not expect
or intend that a law could be passed that was binding on a State when the
people of that State did not wish it so. Mr. Hayne had the best end of the
argument, and the opinion is now general among jurists that his logic was
right and just, and that those who thought otherwise were wrong. New
England had practically nullified United States law in Eighteen Hundred
Twelve, the Hartford Convention of Eighteen Hundred Fourteen had declared
the right; Josiah Quincy had advocated the privilege of any State to
nullify an obnoxious law, quite as a matter of course.

The framers of the Constitution had merely said that we "had better" hang
together, not that we "must." But with the years had come a feeling that
the Nation's life was unsafe if any State should pull away.

Once, on the plains of Colorado, I was with a party when there was danger
of an attack from Indians. Two of the party wished to go back; but the
leader drew his revolver and threatened to shoot the first man who tried
to seek safety. "We must hang together or hang separately." Logically,
each man had the right to secede, and go off on his own account, but
expediency made a law and we declared that any man who tried to leave did
so at his peril.

To Webster was given the task of putting a new construction on the
Constitution, and to make of the Constitution a Law instead of a mere
compact. Webster's speech was not an argument; it was a plea. And so
mightily did he point out the dangers of separation; review the splendid
past; and prophesy the greatness of the future--a future that could only
be ours through absolute union and loyalty to the good of the whole--that
he won his cause.

After that speech, i