Volume I Part 21 (1/2)
But, in general, his book-buying was moderate during these formative years as a lawyer. While it is difficult to learn exactly what literature Marshall indulged in, besides novels and poetry, we know that he had ”Dionysius Longinus on the Sublime”; the ”Works of Nicholas Machiavel,” in four volumes; ”The History and Proceedings of the House of Lords from the Restoration,” in six volumes; the ”Life of the Earl of Clarendon, Lord High Chancellor of England”; the ”Works of C.
Churchill--Poems and Sermons on Lord's Prayer”; and the ”Letters of Lord Chesterfield to his son.” A curious and entertaining book was a condensed cyclopaedia of law and business ent.i.tled ”Lex Mercatoria Rediviva or The Merchant's Directory,” on the t.i.tle-page of which is written in his early handwriting, ”John Marshall Richmond.”[587]
Marshall also had an English translation of ”The Orations of aeschines and Demosthenes on the Crown.”[588]
Marshall's wine bills were very moderate for those days, although as heavy as a young lawyer's resources could bear. On January 31, 1785, he bought fourteen s.h.i.+llings' worth of wine; and two and a half months later he paid twenty-six pounds and ten s.h.i.+llings ”For Wine”; and the same day, ”beer 4d,” and the next day, ”Gin 30/.” On June 14 of the same year he enters, ”punch 2/6,” the next day, ”punch 3/,” and on the next day, ”punch 6/.”[589]
Early in this year Marshall's father, now in Kentucky and with opulent prospects before him, gave his favorite son eight hundred and twenty-four acres of the best land in Fauquier County.[590] So the rising Richmond attorney was in comfortable circ.u.mstances. He was becoming a man of substance and property; and this condition was reflected in his contributions to various Richmond social and religious enterprises.
He again contributed two pounds to ”S^t. Taminy's” on May 9, 1785, and the same day paid six pounds, six s.h.i.+llings to ”My club at Farmicolas.”[591] On May 16 he paid thirty s.h.i.+llings for a ”Ball” and nine s.h.i.+llings for ”music”; and May 25 he enters, ”Jockie Club 4-4”
(pounds and s.h.i.+llings). On July 5 he spent six s.h.i.+llings more at the ”Club”; and the next month he again enters a contribution to ”S^t. Johns [Episcopal Church] 1-16.” He was an enthusiastic Mason, as we shall see; and on September 13, 1785, he enters, ”p^d. Mason's Ball subscription for 10” (pounds). October 15 he gives eight pounds and four s.h.i.+llings for an ”Episcopal Meeting”; and the next month (November 2, 1785) subscribes eighteen s.h.i.+llings ”to a ball.” And at the end of the year (December 23, 1785) he enters his ”Subscription to Richmond a.s.sem.
3” (pounds).
Marshall's practice during his third year at the Richmond bar grew normally. The largest single fee received during this year (1785) was thirty-five pounds, while another fee of twenty pounds, and still another of fourteen pounds, mark the nearest approaches to this high-water mark. He had by now in Richmond two negroes (t.i.thable), two horses, and twelve head of cattle.[592]
He was elected City Recorder during this year; and it was to the efforts of Marshall, in promoting a lottery for the purpose, that the Masonic Hall was built in the ambitious town.[593]
The young lawyer had deepened the affection of his wife's family which he had won in Yorktown. Two years after his marriage the first husband of his wife's sister, Eliza, died; and, records the sorrowing young widow, ”my Father ... dispatched ... my darling Brother Marshall to bring me.” Again the bereaved Eliza tells of how she was ”conducted by my good brother Marshall who lost no time” about this errand of comfort and sympathy.[594]
February 15, 1786, he enters an expense of twelve pounds ”for moving my office” which he had painted in April at a cost of two pounds and seventeen s.h.i.+llings. This year he contributed to festivities and social events as usual. In addition to his subscriptions to b.a.l.l.s, a.s.semblies, and clubs, we find that on May 22, 1786, he paid nine s.h.i.+llings for a ”Barbecue,” and during the next month, ”barbecue 7/” and still again, ”barbecue 6/.” On June 15, he ”paid for Wine 7-7-6,” and on the 26th, ”corporation dinner 2-2-6.” In September, 1786, his doctor's bills were very high. On the 22d of that month he paid nearly forty-five pounds for the services of three physicians.[595]
Among the books purchased was ”Blair's sermons” which cost him one pound and four s.h.i.+llings.[596] In July he again ”P^d. for S^t. Taminy's feast 2” (pounds). The expense of traveling is shown by several entries, such as, ”Expenses up & down to & from Fauquier 4-12” (four pounds, twelve s.h.i.+llings); and ”Expenses going to Gloster &c 5” (pounds); ”expenses going to W^{ms}burg 7” (pounds); and again, ”expenses going to and returning from Winchester 15” (pounds); and still again, ”expenses going to W^{ms}burg 7” (pounds). On November 19, Marshall enters, ”For quarter cask of wine 12-10” (twelve pounds and ten s.h.i.+llings). On this date we find, ”To Barber 18” (s.h.i.+llings)--an entry which is as rare as the expenses to the theater are frequent.
He appears to have bought a house during this year (1786) and enters on October 7, 1786, ”P^d. Mr. B. Lewis in part for his house 70 cash & 5 in an order in favor of James Taylor----75”; and November 19, 1786, ”Paid Mr. B. Lewis in part for house 50” (pounds); and in December he again ”P^d. Mr. Lewis in part for house 27-4” (twenty-seven pounds, four s.h.i.+llings); and (November 19) ”P^d. Mr. Lewis 16” (pounds); and on the 28th, ”Paid Mr. Lewis in full 26-17-1 1/4.”
In 1786, the Legislature elected Edmund Randolph Governor; and, on November 10, 1786, Randolph advertised that ”The General a.s.sembly having appointed me to an office incompatible with the further pursuit of my profession, I beg leave to inform my clients that John Marshall Esq.
will succeed to my business in General &c.”[597]
At the end of this year, for the first time, Marshall adds up his receipts and expenditures, as follows: ”Received in the Year 1786 according to the foregoing accounts 508-4-10.” And on the opposite page he enters[598]--
To my expenses 432______________________ 1 8 --------------------------- 433 -- 8
In 1787 Marshall kept his accounts in better fas.h.i.+on. He employed a housekeeper in April, Mrs. Marshall being unable to attend to domestic duties; and from February, 1787, until May of the following year he enters during each month, ”Betsy Mumkins 16/.” The usual expenditures were made during this year, and while Marshall neglects to summarize his income and outlay, his practice was still growing, although slowly. On December 3, 1787, his second child was born.[599]
In January of 1787 occurred the devastating Richmond fire which destroyed much of the little city;[600] and on February 7, Marshall enters among his expenses, ”To my subscription to the sufferers by fire 21” (pounds).
Marshall's name first appears in the reports of the cases decided by the Virginia Court of Appeals in 1786. In May of that year the court handed down its opinion in Hite _et al. vs._ Fairfax _et al._[601] It involved not only the lands directly in controversy, but also the validity of the entire Fairfax t.i.tle and indirectly that of a great deal of other land in Virginia. Baker, who appears to have been the princ.i.p.al attorney for the Fairfax claimants, declared that one of the contentions of the appellants ”would destroy every t.i.tle in the Commonwealth.” The case was argued for the State by Edmund Randolph, Attorney-General, and by John Taylor (probably of Caroline). Marshall, supporting Baker, acted as attorney for ”such of the tenants as were citizens of Virginia.” The argument consumed three days, May 3 to 5 inclusive.[602]
Marshall made an elaborate argument, and since it is the first of his recorded utterances, it is important as showing his quality of mind and legal methods at that early period of his career. Marshall was a little more than thirty years old and had been practicing law in Richmond for about three years.
The most striking features of his argument are his vision and foresight.
It is plain that he was acutely conscious, too, that it was more important to the settlers who derived their holdings from Lord Fairfax to have the long-disputed t.i.tle settled than it was to win as to the particular lands directly in controversy. Indeed, upon a close study of the complicated records in the case, it would seem that Joist Hite's claim could not, by any possibility, have been defeated. For, although the lands claimed by him, and others after him, clearly were within the proprietary of Lord Fairfax, yet they had been granted to Hite by the King in Council, and confirmed by the Crown; Lord Fairfax had agreed with the Crown to confirm them on his part; he or his agents had promised Hite that, if the latter would remain on the land with his settlers, Fairfax would execute the proper conveyances to him, and Fairfax also made other guarantees to Hite.
But it was just as clear that, outside of the lands immediately in controversy, Lord Fairfax's t.i.tle, from a strictly legal point of view, was beyond dispute except as to the effect of the sequestration laws.[603] It was a.s.sailed, however, through suggestion at least, both by Attorney-General Randolph and by Mr. Taylor. There was, at this time, a strong popular movement on foot in Virginia to devise some means for destroying the whole Fairfax t.i.tle to the Northern Neck. Indeed, the reckless royal bounty from which this enormous estate sprang had been resented bitterly by the Virginia settlers from the very beginning;[604]
the people never admitted the justice and morality of the Fairfax grant.
Also, at this particular period, there was an epidemic of debt repudiation, evasion of contracts and other obligations, and a.s.sailing of t.i.tles.[605]
So, while Baker, the senior Fairfax lawyer, referred but briefly to the validity of the Fairfax t.i.tle and devoted practically the whole of his argument to the lands involved in the case then before the court, Marshall, on the other hand, made the central question of the validity of the whole Fairfax t.i.tle the dominant note of his argument. Thus he showed, in his first reported legal address, his most striking characteristic of going directly to the heart of any subject.