Volume IV Part 31 (1/2)

[714] Webster to Mason, April 28, 1818, _Priv. Corres._: Webster, I, 282-83. (Italics the author's.) In fact three such suits were brought early in 1818 on the ground of diverse citizens.h.i.+p. (s.h.i.+rley, 2-3.) Any one of them would have enabled the Supreme Court to have pa.s.sed on the ”general principles” of contract and government. These cases, had they arrived on time, would have afforded Story his almost frantically desired opportunity to declare that legislation violative of contracts was against ”natural right”--an opinion he fervently desired to give.

But the wiser Marshall saw in the case, as presented to the Supreme Court on the contract guarantee of the Const.i.tution, the occasion to declare, in effect, that these same fundamental principles are embraced in the contract clause of the written Const.i.tution of the American Nation.

[715] Webster to Mason, March 13, 1818, _Priv. Corres._: Webster, I, 275.

”Every body was grinning at the folly he uttered. Bell could not stand it. He seized his hat and went off.” (Webster to Smith, March 14, 1818, _ib._ 277; and see Webster to Brown, March 11, 1818, Van Tyne, 75-76.)

Holmes ”has attempted as a politician ... such a desire to be admired by _everybody_, that he has ceased for weeks to be regarded by _anybody_.... In the Dartmouth College Cause, he sunk lower at the bar than he had in the Hall of Legislature.” (Daggett to Mason, March 18, 1818, Hillard: _Memoir and Correspondence of Jeremiah Mason_, 199.)

The contempt of the legal profession for Holmes is shown by the fact that in Farrar's _Report_ but four and one half pages are given to his argument, while those of all other counsel for Woodward (Sullivan and Bartlett in the State court and Wirt in the Supreme Court) are published in full.

[716] ”He made an apology for himself, that he had not had time to study the case, and had hardly thought of it, till it was called on.” (Webster to Mason, March 13, 1818, _Priv. Corres._: Webster, I, 275-76.)

[717] ”Before he concluded he became so exhausted ... that he was obliged to request the Court to indulge him until the next day.”

(_Boston Daily Advertiser_, March 23, 1818.)

”Wirt ... argues a good cause well. In this case he said more nonsensical things than became him.” (Webster to Smith, March 14, 1818, _Priv. Corres._: Webster, I, 277.)

[718] Hopkinson wrote this anthem when Marshall returned from France.

(See vol. II, 343, of this work.)

[719] This description of Hopkinson is from Philadelphia according to traditions gathered by the author.

[720] Choate says that Webster called to his aid ”the ripe and beautiful culture of Hopkinson.” (Brown, I, 514.)

[721] The same was true of Hopkinson's argument for Chase. (See vol.

III, chap. IV, of this work.)

[722] Webster to Brown, March 11, 1818, Van Tyne, 75-76.

After Hopkinson's argument Webster wrote Brown: ”Mr. Hopkinson understood every part of the cause, and in his argument did it great justice.” (Webster to Brown, March 13, 1818, _Priv. Corres._: Webster, I, 274; and see Webster to Mason, March 13, 1818, _ib._ 275-76.)

”Mr. Hopkinson closed the cause for the College with great ability, and in a manner which gave perfect satisfaction and delight to all who heard him.” (_Boston Daily Advertiser_, March 23, 1818.)

It was expected that the combined fees of Webster and Hopkinson would be $1000, ”not an unreasonable compensation.” (Marsh to Brown, Nov. 22, 1817, Lord, 139.) Hopkinson was paid $500. (Brown to Hopkinson, May 4, 1819, Hopkinson MSS.)

At their first meeting after the decision, the Trustees, ”feeling the inadequacy” of the fees of all the lawyers for the College, asked Mason, Smith, Webster, and Hopkinson to sit for their portraits by Gilbert Stuart, the artist to be paid by the Trustees. (Shattuck to Hopkinson, Jan. 4, 1835, enclosing resolution of the Trustees, April 4, 1819, attested by Miles Olcott, secretary, Hopkinson MSS.; also, Webster to Hopkinson, May 9, 1819, _ib._)

[723] Webster to Smith, March 14, 1818, _Priv. Corres._: Webster, I, 577.

[724] Many supposed that Story was undecided, perhaps opposed to the College. In fact, he was as decided as Marshall. (See _infra_, 257-58, 275 and footnote.)

[725] Webster to Smith, March 14, 1818, _Priv. Corres._: Webster, I, 577.

[726] For example, William Wirt, Monroe's Attorney-General, in urging the appointment of Kent, partisan Federalist though he was, to the Supreme Bench to succeed Justice Livingston, who died March 19, 1823, wrote that ”Kent holds so lofty a stand everywhere for almost matchless intellect and learning, as well as for spotless purity and high-minded honor and patriotism, that I firmly believe the nation at large would approve and applaud the appointment.” (Wirt to Monroe, May 5, 1823, Kennedy, II, 153.)

[727] Kent to Marsh, Aug. 26, 1818, s.h.i.+rley, 263. Moreover, in 1804, Kent, as a member of the New York Council of Revision, had held that ”charters of incorporation containing grants of personal and munic.i.p.al privileges were not to be essentially affected without the consent of the parties concerned.” (Record of Board, as quoted in _ib._ 254.)

[728] s.h.i.+rley, 253. s.h.i.+rley says that Kent ”agreed to draw up an opinion for Johnson in this case.”

[729] Webster to Story, Sept. 9, 1818, _Priv. Corres._: Webster, I, 287.