The Missouri Compromise.-Respecting one other important measure of this period,the Republicans also took a broad view of their obligations under the Constitution;namely,the Missouri Compromise.It is true,they insisted on the admission of Missouri as a slave state,balanced against the free state of Maine;but at the same time they assented to the prohibition of slavery in the Louisiana territory north of the line 36°30'.During the debate on the subject an extreme view had been presented,to the effect that Congress had no consti-tutional warrant for abolishing slavery in the territories.The precedent of the Northwest Ordinance,ratified by Congress in 1789,seemed a conclusive answer from practice to this contention;but Monroe submitted the issue to his cabinet,which included Calhoun of South Carolina,Crawford of Georgia,and Wirt of Virginia,all presumably adherents to the Jeffersonian principle of strict con-struction.He received in reply a unanimous verdict to the effect that Congress did have the power to prohibit slavery in the territories governed by it.Acting on this advice he approved,on March 6,1820,the bill establishing freedom north of the compromise line.This generous interpretation of the powers of Congress stood for nearly forty years,until repudiated by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case.
The National Decisions of Chief Justice MarshallJohn Marshall,the Nationalist.-The Republicans in the lower ranges of state politics,who did not catch the grand national style of their leaders charged with responsibilities in the national field,were assisted in their education by a Federalist from the Old Dominion,John Marshall,who,as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1801to 1835,lost no occasion to exalt the Constitution above the claims of the provinces.No differences of opinion as to his political views have ever led even his warmest opponents to deny his superb abilities or his sincere devotion to the na-tional idea.All will likewise agree that for talents,native and acquired,he was an ornament to the humble democracy that brought him forth.His whole career was American.Born on the frontier of Virginia,reared in a log cabin,granted only the barest rudiments of education,inured to hardship and rough life,he rose by masterly efforts to the highest judicial honor America can bestow.
On him the bitter experience of the Revolution and of later days made a lasting impression.Hewas no "summer patriot."He had been a soldier in John Marshallthe Revolutionary army.He had suffered with Washington at Valley Forge.He had seen his comrades in arms starving and freezing because the Continental Congress had neither the power nor the inclination to force the states to do their full duty.To him the Articles of Confederation were the symbol of futility.Into the struggle for the formation of the Constitution and its ratification in Virginia he had thrown himself with the ardor of a soldier.Later,as a member of Congress,a representative to France,and Secretary of State,he had aided the Federalists in establishing the new government.When at length they were driven from power in the executive and legislative branches of the government,he was chosen for their last stronghold,the Supreme Court.By historic irony he administered the oath of office to his bitterest enemy,Thomas Jefferson;and,long after the author of the Declaration of Independence had retired to private life,the stern Chief Justice continued to announce the old Federalist principles from the Supreme Bench.
Marbury vs.Madison-An Act of Congress Annulled.-He had been in his high office only two years when he laid down for the first time in the name of the entire Court the doctrine that the judges have the power to declare an act of Congress null and void when in their opinion it violates the Constitution.This power was not expressly conferred on the Court.Though many able men held that the judicial branch of the government enjoyed it,the principle was not positively established until 1803when the case of Marbury vs.Madison was decided.In rendering the opinion of the Court,Marshall cited no precedents.He sought no foundations for his argument in ancient history.He rested it on the general nature of the American system.The Constitution,ran his reasoning,is the supreme law of the land;it limits and binds all who act in the name of the United States;it limits the powers of Congress and defines the rights of citizens.If Congress can ignore its limitations and trespass upon the rights of citizens,Mar-shall argued,then the Constitution disappears and Congress is supreme.Since,however,the Constitution is supreme and superior to Congress,it is the duty of judges,under their oath of office,to sustain it against measures which violate it.Therefore,from the nature of the American constitutional system the courts must declare null and void all acts which are not authorized."A law repugnant to the Constitution,"he closed,"is void and the courts as well as other departments are bound by that instrument."From that day to this the practice of federal and state courts in passing upon the constitutionality of laws has remained unshaken.