The Life of John Marshall
Chapter 28 : [637] Madison to Jefferson, July 3,1784; _Writings_: Hunt, ii, 62.[638] Madison to Was.

[637] Madison to Jefferson, July 3,1784; _Writings_: Hunt, ii, 62.

[638] Madison to Was.h.i.+ngton, Dec. 14,1787; _ib._, v, 69-70.

[639] Was.h.i.+ngton to Madison, Jan. 10, 1788; _Writings_: Ford, xi, 208.

[640] Was.h.i.+ngton to Lafayette, April 28, 1788; _ib._, 254. Was.h.i.+ngton wrote bitterly of State antagonism. "One State pa.s.ses a prohibitory law respecting some article, another State opens wide the avenue for its admission. One a.s.sembly makes a system, another a.s.sembly unmakes it."

(_Ib._)

[641] Hening, xi, 299-306. This statement of Marshall's was grossly incorrect. This session of the Legislature pa.s.sed several laws of the very greatest public consequence, such as the act to authorize Congress to pa.s.s retaliatory trade laws against Great Britain (_ib._, 313); an immigration and citizens.h.i.+p act (_ib._, 322-24); an act prohibiting British refugees from coming to Virginia; and a quarantine act (_ib._, 29-31). It was this session that pa.s.sed the famous act to authorize Virginia's delegates in Congress to convey to the United States the Northwest Territory (_ib._, 326-28).

This remarkable oversight of Marshall is hard to account for. An explanation is that this was the year of his marriage; and the year also in which he became a resident of Richmond, started in the practice of the law there, and set up his own home. In addition to these absorbing things, his duty as a member of the Council of State took his attention.

Also, of course, it was the year when peace with Great Britain was declared. Still, these things do not excuse Marshall's strange misstatement. Perhaps he underestimated the importance of the work done at this particular session.

[642] Hening, xi, 387-88. This bill became a law at the spring session of the following year. The impracticable part enforcing attendance of members was dropped. The bill as pa.s.sed imposes a penalty of fifty pounds on any sheriff or other officer for failure to return certificates of elections; a forfeit of two hundred pounds upon any sheriff interfering in any election or showing any partiality toward candidates.

[643] Marshall to Powell, Dec. 9, 1783; _Branch Historical Papers_, i, 130-31.

[644] An act allowing one half of the taxes to be paid in tobacco, hemp, flour, or deerskins, and suspending distress for taxes until January, 1784. (Hening, xi, 289.) The scarcity of specie was so great and the people so poor that the collection of taxes was extremely difficult. In 1782 the partial payment of taxes in commutables--tobacco, hemp, flour, or deerskins--was introduced. This occasioned such loss to the treasury that in May, 1783, the Commutable Acts were repealed; but within five months the Legislature reversed itself again and pa.s.sed the Commutable Bill which so disgusted Marshall.

[645] Marshall to Monroe, Dec. 12, 1783; MS., Draper Collection, Wisconsin Historical Society; also printed in _Amer. Hist. Rev._, iii, 673. This letter is not addressed, but it has been a.s.sumed that it was written to Thomas Jefferson. This is incorrect; it was written to James Monroe.

[646] Journal, H.D. (Oct. Sess., 1782), 27. It is almost certain that his father and Jacquelin Ambler were pus.h.i.+ng him. The Speaker and other prominent members of the House had been colleagues of Thomas Marshall in the House of Burgesses and Ambler was popular with everybody. Still, Marshall's personality must have had much to do with this notable advancement. His members.h.i.+p in the Council cannot be overestimated in considering his great conflict with the Virginia political "machine"

after he became Chief Justice. See volume III of this work.

[647] Journal of the Council of State, Nov. 20, 1782; MS., Va. St. Lib.

[648] Pendleton to Madison, Nov. 25, 1782; quoted in Rives, i, 182.

[649] Const.i.tution of Virginia, 1776.

[650] Dodd, in _Amer. Hist. Rev._, xii, 776.

[651] Marshall partic.i.p.ated in the appointment of General George Rogers Clark to the office of Surveyor of Officers' and Soldiers' lands.

(Journal, Ex. Council, 1784, 57: MS., Va. St. Lib.)

[652] _Ib._

[653] Binney, in Dillon, iii, 291-92. This story is repeated in almost all of the sketches of Marshall's life.

[654] Marshall to Monroe, April 17, 1784; MS., N.Y. Pub. Lib.

[655] His father, now in Kentucky, could no longer personally aid his son in his old home. Thus Marshall himself had to attend to his own political affairs.

[656] Marshall did not try for the Legislature again until 1787 when he sought and secured election from Henrico. (See _infra._)

[657] Journal, H.D. (Spring Sess., 1784), 5. A Robert Marshall was also a member of the House during 1784 as one of the representatives for Isle of Wight County. He was not related in any way to John Marshall.

[658] _Ib._

[659] _Ib._

[660] Story, in Dillon, iii, 335-36.

[661] As an example of the number and nature of these soldier pet.i.tions see Journal, H.D. (Spring Sess., 1784), 7, 9, 11, 16, 18, 44.

[662] See chap, VIII and footnote to p. 288.

[663] Williamson was a Tory of the offensive type. He had committed hostile acts which embittered the people against him. (See _Cal. Va. St.

Prs._, ii. And see Eckenrode: _R. V._, chap, xi, for full account of this and similar cases.)

[664] The gentle pastime of tarring and feathering unpopular persons and riding them on sharp rails appears to have been quite common in all parts of the country, for a long time before the Revolution. Men even burned their political opponents at the stake. (See instances in Belcher, i, 40-45.) Savage, however, as were the atrocities committed upon the Loyalists by the patriots, even more brutal treatment was dealt out to the latter by British officers and soldiers during the Revolution. (See _supra_, chap. IV, footnote to p. 116.)

[665] Journal, H.D. (Spring Sess., 1784), 19.

[666] Journal, H.D. (Spring Sess., 1784), 23, 27.

[667] _Ib._, 45. For thorough examination of this incident see Eckenrode: _R. V._, chap. xi.

[668] Journal, H.D. (Spring Sess., 1784), 57.

[669] _Ib._, 14.

[670] Hening, xi, 390.

[671] Journal, H.D., 70-71.

[672] Madison to Jefferson, July 3, 1794; _Writings_: Hunt, ii, 56-57.

The Const.i.tution of 1776 never was satisfactory to the western part of Virginia, which was under-represented. Representation was by counties and not population. Also suffrage was limited to white freeholders; and this restriction was made more onerous by the fact that county representation was based on slave as well as free population. Also, the Const.i.tution made possible the perpetuation of the Virginia political machine, previously mentioned, which afterward played a part of such vast importance in National affairs. Yet extreme liberals like the accomplished and patriotic Mason were against the Legislature turning itself into a convention to make a new one. (Mason to Henry, May 6, 1783; Henry, ii, 185.)

[673] Madison to Jefferson, Jan. 9, 1785; _Writings_: Hunt, ii, 104.

[674] Hening, xi, 510-18. This law shows the chief articles of commerce at that time and the kind of money which might be received as tolls. The scale of equivalents in pounds sterling vividly displays the confused currency situation of the period. The table names Spanish milled pieces of eight, English milled crowns, French silver crowns, johannes, half johannes, moidores, English guineas, French guineas, doubloons, Spanish pistoles, French milled pistoles, Arabian sequins; the weight of each kind of money except Spanish pieces of eight and English and French milled crowns being carefully set out; and "other gold coin (German excepted) by the pennyweight." If any of this money should be reduced in value by lessening its weight or increasing its alloy it should be received at "its reduced value only." (_Ib._)

[675] Madison to Jefferson, Jan. 9, 1785; _Writings_: Hunt, ii, 102.

Madison gives a very full history and description of this legislation.

[676] Marshall's Account Book contains entries of many of these payments.

[677] Journal, H.D. (Nov. 1787), 27-127.

[678] Journal, H.D. (Nov. 1787), 70.

[679] _Ib._, 27.

[680] Hening, xii, 464-67. The preamble of the act recites that it is pa.s.sed because under the existing law "justice is greatly delayed by the tedious forms of proceedings, suitors are therefore obliged to waste much time and expense to the impoverishment of themselves and the state, and decrees when obtained are with difficulty carried into execution."

(_Ib._)

[681] _Ib._, ix, 389-99.