Read Online Legacy by James A. Michener - Free Book Online Page B
Authors: James A. Michener
Tags: Fiction, Historical fiction, General, Fiction - General, Social Science, Sociology, Large Type Books, Customs & Traditions, Iran-Contra Affair; 1985-1990
Ads: Link
statement about Shay's Rebellion which Jefferson had issued from the safety of his cushy job in Paris:
God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. What country can preserve 'its liberties if their rulers are not
warned from time to time that their people pre- serve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms! What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
RQ
'Imagine a man like that as President!' Marshall grumbled. 'Our task is to frustrate the radicalism he introduced,' and the two judges strained every muscle to do just that. They started with the famous Dartmouth Col- lege v. Woodward case, in which Marshall estab- lished the sanctity of contracts, a decision enabling the business of the nation to proceed and grow in an orderly way for the next hundred years. What role did our judge play in this crucial case? He seems not to have followed the impas- sioned argument, focusing instead on the appear- ance of the principal lawyer, Daniel Webster. Making no comment whatever on the merits of the case, Starr wrote to a friend:
Daniel Webster came before us like a leading actor in a play. Robust, handsome, shoes of the most expensive quality, tight britches of a pur- plish colour, blue cloth coat fitted exquisitely to his frame and adorned with flashing silver or pewter buttons, a waistcoat uniting with a huge expanse of ruffled shirt, a flowing collar marked by an elaborate kerchief, hair neatly tied in a tail behind. When he spoke, he domi- nated the Court.
It was judge Starr who was responsible for the lasting picture we have of Webster as he con- cluded his plea in defence of Dartmouth's right to exist under its contract:
When Webster finished, he stood silent before our Court. Then in his great organ voice told us: 'You may destroy this little institution: it is weak, it is in your hands. You may put it out. But if you do so, you must extinguish, one after
70
another, all those great lights of science which have thrown their radiance over this land. It is, sir, as I have said, a small college. And yet there are those who love it.' When he finished, there were tears in his eyes, and in mine, too. We all voted in his favour, and I think Dartmouth Col- lege was saved, but it might have been the other way.
judge Starr played a similar role in what is widely regarded as the most important case ever to be decided by the Court, McCulloch v. Maryland, but like many commentators at the time and since, he seemed to have difficulty in remembering who was claiming what and the significance of the arguments. It came down to two questions on which the future of our nation depended: First, is the federal government denied permission to cre- ate a needed agency, in this case a national bank, if the Constitution overlooked granting such a power, or can Congress rely upon authorizations not spelled out but implied by common sense? Sec- ond, and of even greater import, can a state, in this case Maryland, impose excessive taxes on an agency created by the federal government and thus destroy it? Put simply, what body of law con- trols the United States - the rigid terms of a Con- stitution engraved in stone in 1787, or a living, breathing body of principles, always loyal to the framework of the Constitution but able to adjust to
the nation's evolving needs? Webster and a scintillating Maryland lawyer named William Pinkney defended the govern- ment, but once again judge Starr missed the essential arguments, even Webster's immortal cry: 'The power to tax is the power to destroy.'He
71
also missed most of Pinkney's historic three-day oration, which judge Story, sitting in the case, called 'the greatest effort I have ever heard.' What Starr concentrated on once more was sartorial splendour:
I perceived that he [Pinkney] wore a corset to squeeze in a belly which was even bigger than mine.
God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. What country can preserve 'its liberties if their rulers are not
warned from time to time that their people pre- serve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms! What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
RQ
'Imagine a man like that as President!' Marshall grumbled. 'Our task is to frustrate the radicalism he introduced,' and the two judges strained every muscle to do just that. They started with the famous Dartmouth Col- lege v. Woodward case, in which Marshall estab- lished the sanctity of contracts, a decision enabling the business of the nation to proceed and grow in an orderly way for the next hundred years. What role did our judge play in this crucial case? He seems not to have followed the impas- sioned argument, focusing instead on the appear- ance of the principal lawyer, Daniel Webster. Making no comment whatever on the merits of the case, Starr wrote to a friend:
Daniel Webster came before us like a leading actor in a play. Robust, handsome, shoes of the most expensive quality, tight britches of a pur- plish colour, blue cloth coat fitted exquisitely to his frame and adorned with flashing silver or pewter buttons, a waistcoat uniting with a huge expanse of ruffled shirt, a flowing collar marked by an elaborate kerchief, hair neatly tied in a tail behind. When he spoke, he domi- nated the Court.
It was judge Starr who was responsible for the lasting picture we have of Webster as he con- cluded his plea in defence of Dartmouth's right to exist under its contract:
When Webster finished, he stood silent before our Court. Then in his great organ voice told us: 'You may destroy this little institution: it is weak, it is in your hands. You may put it out. But if you do so, you must extinguish, one after
70
another, all those great lights of science which have thrown their radiance over this land. It is, sir, as I have said, a small college. And yet there are those who love it.' When he finished, there were tears in his eyes, and in mine, too. We all voted in his favour, and I think Dartmouth Col- lege was saved, but it might have been the other way.
judge Starr played a similar role in what is widely regarded as the most important case ever to be decided by the Court, McCulloch v. Maryland, but like many commentators at the time and since, he seemed to have difficulty in remembering who was claiming what and the significance of the arguments. It came down to two questions on which the future of our nation depended: First, is the federal government denied permission to cre- ate a needed agency, in this case a national bank, if the Constitution overlooked granting such a power, or can Congress rely upon authorizations not spelled out but implied by common sense? Sec- ond, and of even greater import, can a state, in this case Maryland, impose excessive taxes on an agency created by the federal government and thus destroy it? Put simply, what body of law con- trols the United States - the rigid terms of a Con- stitution engraved in stone in 1787, or a living, breathing body of principles, always loyal to the framework of the Constitution but able to adjust to
the nation's evolving needs? Webster and a scintillating Maryland lawyer named William Pinkney defended the govern- ment, but once again judge Starr missed the essential arguments, even Webster's immortal cry: 'The power to tax is the power to destroy.'He
71
also missed most of Pinkney's historic three-day oration, which judge Story, sitting in the case, called 'the greatest effort I have ever heard.' What Starr concentrated on once more was sartorial splendour:
I perceived that he [Pinkney] wore a corset to squeeze in a belly which was even bigger than mine.
Similar Books
