cælum. He argued that, as he was the first occupant, his right extended from the ground up to the vault of heaven, and that no one had a right to become a squatter on his back. The club finally decided that it was a drawn throw between the Chief Justice and Parson Blair.1

According to all accounts, the domestic life of Marshall was charming. He did not wait to become a wealthy man before contracting matrimony. He was married about two years after he began to practice law, and has been heard to say that, after paying the wedding fee to the parson, he had but one solitary guinea left. Mrs. Marshall soon became an invalid, but her infirmities "only seemed to increase his care and tenderness."? Miss Martineau tells us that the Chief Justice believed that women were intellectually the equals of men, and that he had a deep sense of their social injuries. To his wife's memory he paid an unusual honor. It is extremely common to read upon the gravestone of a woman the statement that the deceased was the wife of a certain man. But Marshall was probably the first man to direct that the wife's name should be recorded upon the tombstone of the husband. The inscription, which, with the exception of the last date, he prepared before his death, and which may still be seen on his gravestone in the Shockhoe Hill cemetery in Richmond, reads thus:

"JOHN MARSHALL,

son of Thomas and Mary Marshall,

was born on the 24th of September, 1755;

intermarried with Mary Willis Ambler, the 3d of January, 1783; departed this life the 6th of July, 1835."

1"The Two Parsons," by George Wythe Munford, Richmond, 1884: 326-361.

2 The Richmond News Illustrated Saturday Magazine, September 22, 1900.

When, after thirty-four years of judicial service, Chief Justice Marshall died in the eightieth year of his age, the tributes to his memory were numerous and weighty. In some instances, after the sound of the funeral eulogies has died away, the waters close over the memory of a deceased person without leaving a single ripple on the surface. Not so in the case of Marshall. His work has stood the test of time. Year by year his reputation has strengthened and deepened. Nor has that reputation been confined to this country, nor even to this hemisphere. A few years since, when the Chief Justice of South Australia was visiting the United States, an American lawyer called his attention to a portrait of Marshall, saying: "We consider him the greatest judge of our country." "You might well say the greatest judge of any country," was the reply of the distinguished visitor from the Antipodes. In recent times two statues of the Chief Justice have been erected, one at Richmond and the other at Washington. But a still more enduring and imperishable memorial is contained in the pages of Cranch and Wheaton.

Edgar Aldrich thus introduced his elaborate address on "John Marshall as a Soldier:"

"As the aloe is said to flower only once in a hundred years, so it seems to be but once in a thousand years that nature blossoms into this unrivaled product, and produces such a man as we have here." Such was the poetic simile, employed by a noted English statesman, to illustrate the boundless genius of Homer, and we may well apply it to the stupendous intellectual force of John Marshall. Thomas Carlyle has said: "One comfort is that great men taken up in any way are profitable com

pany. We cannot look, however imperfectly, upon a great man without gaining something by it. He is the living fountain of life, which it is pleasant to be near. . On any terms whatsoever you will not grudge to wander in the neighborhood for a while." And so it is with the memory and life of Marshall.

I am to speak of the early military life of this man of vast proportions.

After reviewing Marshall's career as a soldier of the Revolution the speaker said:

After nearly six years' service, from May, 1775, to January, 1781, with occasional interruptions when hostilities were not active, and with the repulse and discomfiture of Arnold, John Marshall ended his military service, except later as General of Militia, and entered at once upon that great career which was to mean so much for jurisprudence, and for the scope and essential force of the Federal Constitution, of which others are to speak.

Military service is not inglorious. No one will claim that every soldier possesses the qualities of a great judge, but one may possess the qualities of greatness, and do his duty to his country as a soldier in the days of its peril.

Including Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White, now in the Supreme Court, thirteen of the line of justices of that court saw military service. They are Harlan, White, Lamar, Matthews, Woods, Campbell, Thomas, Todd, Brockholst Livingston, Alfred Moore, Bushrod Washington, Thomas Johnson, Robert Hanson Harrison, and John Marshall.

Of the Presidents, thirteen of the twenty-four have served their country in war. They are the present executive, William McKinley, Benjamin Harrison, Chester A.

Arthur, who was an officer in the militia before the Civil War, and during the Civil War Adjutant-General and Quartermaster-General of New York, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln, Pierce, Taylor, William Henry Harrison, Jackson, Monroe, and Washington.

Marshall, a captain of infantry, was in after life called to preside for many years in the highest court of the republic, where his genius was to develop the underlying principles of the Federal Constitution and erect for its scope the broad and enduring structure of constitutional law, which has held and guided this nation in the great crises of the past, and which shall hold and guide this nation, in her future career of increasing enlightenment and plenitude at home, and in her new and broader sphere of usefulness and power among the nations of the world.

Judge Robert M. Wallace, in the course of his address on "The Associates of John Marshall," said in part:

January 31, 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, taking his seat February 4, 1801. Among the five associates whom he found on the bench was Bushrod Washington, who served with him twenty-eight years. During Marshall's long service of thirty-four years on the bench, ten other associates were at different times appointed, who served with him for longer or shorter periods. Among these last was Joseph Story of Massachusetts, who for twenty-four years was an associate of Marshall. Aside from Washington and Story, ten of his remaining associates had been members of the highest court in their respective States before their appointment, besides holding many other important offices. Of the other three, one had been Secretary of the Treasury, another a United States Senator, and a third a

member of Congress. Many of them had been members of constitutional conventions. They were men of great learning and of the highest character, and added strength to the bench.

The court at this time was surrounded by a most distinguished bar. The period of Marshall's Chief Justiceship might truthfully be called the "Golden Age of the American Bar." The highest talent and ambition were directed to the legal profession in preference to all other, as affording the greatest field for distinction and honor. At that time, great industrial and business enterprises did not, as they do to-day, present to the eyes of the community equal fields for success and preferment with the bar. There was Jeremiah Mason, of whom Rufus Choate said, "As a jurist he would have filled the seat of Marshall as Marshall filled it," and that great constitutional lawyer, Daniel Webster, both sons of New Hampshire, Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts, and William Pinkney of Maryland, whom Judge Story regarded as unequaled advocates, Thomas A. Emmet of New York, who had the real Irish eloquence, the magnetic Henry Clay, the brilliant William Wirt, that great lawyer, Horace Binney, and many others equally illustrious. Their arguments sometimes lasted for days. It was an age of great argument. Their learning, their labors, and their eloquence enlightened and aided the court. The opinions of the court may be said in some degree to reflect the views of these great lawyers. Especially is this true in regard to Webster, whose great learning on constitutional questions expressed to the court in his impressive manner, as for instance in the Dartmouth College case, may be truly said, without any disparagement to the court, to