Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
JohnMarshall was modest when he said in Cohens v. Virginia that The Federalist was “a complete commentary” on the American Constitution. His own ventures in constitutional exegesis—highlighted by his interpretations of the commerce and contract clauses and his liberal construction of the implied powers clause—secure his rank as a constitutional commentator and seriously rival the authors of The Federalist. Marshall was, however, operating at a distinct advantage over the influential Hamilton, Madison and Jay, who wrote commentaries on a constitution which was yet to be rendered workable; they composed pamphlets intended to secure acceptance of the proposed government by reluctant states. Such commentaries are bound to have more limited value than decisions meant to accomodate the constitutional instrument to the practical problems of government. Marshall's essential contribution lay in the fact that his expositions of the Constitution, as distinguished from the pamphleteering attempts of The Federalist, imparted momentum to those trends which were eventually responsible for the adjustment of our political institutions to the changing tempo of an industrial technology.
1 Marshall was no builder of philosophic systems. Perhaps his intense political and judicial career prevented him from undertaking any systematic exposition of his ideas. But the fact that he did not present his thought to us in a systematic fashion should not lead us to assume that a clearly discernible approach to politics and a rather definite set of principles were absent from the man and his writings. This paper has drawn upon Marshall's constitutional decisions, his biography of Washington, his correspondence, public addresses and papers in an attempt to present a systematic exposition and analysis of his political ideas; in this sense it goes beyond such studies as those of E. S. Corwin, J. B. Thayer, T. S. Craigmyle, B. W. Palmer and A. J. Beveridge.
2 6 Wheat. 418 (1821).
3 Gibbons, v. Ogden, , 9 Wheat. 1 (1824)Google Scholar, Brown, v. Maryland, , 12 Wheat. 419 (1827)Google Scholar, Willson, v. The Black-bird Creek Marsh Company, 2 Pet. 245 (1829).Google Scholar
4 Fletcher, v. Peck, , 6 Cranch 87 (1810)Google Scholar, New Jersey v. Wilson, , 7 Cranch 164 (1812)Google Scholar, Sturges, , v. Crowninshield, , 4 Wheat. 122 (1819)Google Scholar, Dartmouth College v. Woodward, , 4 Wheat. 518 (1819)Google Scholar, Ogden, v. Saunders, , 12 Wheat. 213 (1827).Google Scholar
5 United States v. Fisher, , 2 Cranch 358 (1804)Google Scholar, McCulloch, v. Maryland, , 4 Wheat. 316 (1819).Google Scholar
6 Marshall suggested (in McCulloch, v. Maryland, , 4 Wheat. 433Google Scholar) that some of the observations made by the authors of The Federalist could not always be applied to the peculiar problems of the American Constitution.
7 Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, , 5 Cranch 87 (1809)Google Scholar, Cohens, v. Virginia, , 6 Wheat. 387.Google Scholar
8 McCulloch, v. Maryland, , 4 Wheat. 406.Google Scholar
9 Ibid., 4 Wheat. 407.
10 United States v. Fisher, , 2 Cranch 396.Google Scholar
11 McCulloch, v. Maryland, , 4 Wheat. 406.Google Scholar
12 Case of the Brig Wilson, 1 Brock, Rep. 431 (1820).
13 “Speech on the Judiciary (June 20, 1788),” Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 1787, ed. by Elliot, Jonathan (Philadelphia, 1836), III, 555Google Scholar. Hereafter cited as Elliot's Debates.
14 Jefferson, Thomas, “Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank of the United States (February 15, 1791),” Works of Thomas Jefferson, ed. by Ford, Paul Leicester (New York, 1904), VI, 198.Google Scholar
15 Brown, v. Maryland, , 12 Wheat. 439–40.Google Scholar
16 Marshall, observed that amendments to the Constitution “would enfeeble and materially injure, the future operations of government” (Life of Washington, Philadelphia, 1834, II, 166).Google Scholar
17 Gibbons, v. Ogden, , 9 Wheat. 197Google Scholar. Though Marshall was willing to introduce the judicial review of congressional legislation (an idea intimately associated with a written constitution), he would never argue that if the majority of the legislature were corrupted that it would be “within the province of the judiciary to control their conduct” (Fletcher, v. Peck, , 6 Cranch 130).Google Scholar
18 Crosskey, William Winslow, Politics and the Constitution (Chicago, 1953), I, 11.Google Scholar
19 Franksfurter, Felix, The Commerce Clause Under Marshall, Taney and Waite (Chapel Hill, N. C., 1937), pp. 12–13.Google Scholar
20 Wright, Benjamin F. Jr., The Contract Clause in the Constitution (Cambridge, Mass., 1938), p. 243.Google Scholar
21 Boorstin, Daniel J., “The ‘Real’ Constitution,” Commentary (12, 1953), p. 604.Google Scholar
22 United States v. Maurice, , 2 Brock. Rep. 100–1 (1823).Google Scholar
23 “Pinckney, Marshall and Gerry to Talleyrand (April 3, 1789),” American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 196Google Scholar. Marshall was the author of the correspondence between the American envoys and the French Minister.
24 Life of Washington, II, 366.Google Scholar
25 “Speech on the Judiciary (June 20, 1788),” Elliot's Debates, III , 560–61.Google Scholar
26 Life of Washington, II, 293.Google Scholar
27 Ibid., II, 259.
28 “Pinckney, Marshall and Gerry to Talleyrand (April 3, 1789),” American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 195.Google Scholar
29 Life of Washington, II, 235.Google Scholar
30 Ibid., II, 447.
31 “Speech on the Basis of Representation (November 29, 1829),” Proceedings and Debates of the Virginia State Convention of 1829–30 (Richmond, 1830), p. 498.Google Scholar
32 Address of the Minority in the Virginia Legislature to the People of that State; containing a Vindication of the Constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Laws (Richmond, 1799), p. 2.Google Scholar
33 Ibid., p. 14.
34 Life of Washington, II, 365.Google Scholar
35 “Speech on Taxation (June 10, 1788),” Elliot's Debates, III, 233.Google Scholar
36 Life of Washington, II, 362.Google Scholar
37 Ibid.
38 “Pinckney, Marshall and Gerry to Talleyrand (January 27, 1798),” American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 169.Google Scholar
39 “Marshall to Archibald Stuart (March 27, 1794),” William and Mary Quarterly (10, 1925), p. 287.Google Scholar
40 “Speech on Taxation (June 10, 1788),” Elliot's Debates, III, 562.Google Scholar
41 “Speech on the Judiciary (June 20, 1788),” Elliot's Debates, III, 562.Google Scholar
42 Life of Washington, II, 151.Google Scholar
43 Ibid., II, 76; “Pinckney, Marshall and Gerry to Talleyrand (April 3, 1798),” American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 195Google Scholar; Mitchel, v. United States, 9 Pet. 723 (1835).Google Scholar
44 “Speech on the Basis of Representation (November 29, 1829),” Proceedings and Debates, p. 489.Google Scholar
45 “Speech on Taxation (June 10, 1788),” Elliot's Debates, III, 170.Google Scholar
46 Life of Washington, II, 447.Google Scholar
47 Ibid., II, 239.
48 “Speech on the Judiciary (June 20, 1788),” Elliot's Debates, III, 560.Google Scholar
49 Address of the Minority, p. 13.Google Scholar
50 Murdock and Co. v. Hunter's Rep., 1 Brock. Rep. 140–41 (1808).Google Scholar
51 Dartmouth College v. Woodward, , 4 Wheat. 518.Google Scholar
52 Life of Washington, II, 117.Google Scholar
53 “Pinckney, Marshall and Gerry to Talleyrand (April 3, 1798),” American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 196.Google Scholar
54 Life of Washington, II, 447.Google Scholar
55 “Address to the President (December 9, 1799),” Annals of Congress 6th Cong., p. 196.Google Scholar
56 “Marshall to Joseph Story (May 3, 1831),” The Political and Economic Doctrines of John Marshall, edited by Oster, John E. (New York, 1914) p. 133.Google Scholar
57 Life of Washington, II, 253.Google Scholar
58 Ibid., p. 239.
59 The Venus, 8 Cranch 297 (1814).
60 Thirty Hogsheads of Sugar v. Boyle, 9 Cranch 198 (1815).
61 Johnson, and Lessee, Graham's v. M'Intosh, , 8 Wheat. 572 (1823).Google Scholar
62 The Antelope, 10 Wheat. 120 (1825).
63 Ogden, v. Saunders, , 12 Wheat 347.Google Scholar
64 “Marshall to Joseph Story (October 29, 1829),” Political and Economic Doctrines of Marshall, p. 125.Google Scholar
65 United States v. Percheman, , 7 Pet. 87 (1833).Google Scholar
66 Meade v. Deputy Marshall, 1 Brock. Rep. 328 (1815).
67 Thirty Hogsheads of Sugar v. Boyle, 9 Cranch 198.
68 Johnson, and Lessee, Graham's v. M'Intosh, , 8 Wheat. 572.Google Scholar
69 Brown, v. United States, 8 Cranch 128 (1814).Google Scholar
70 The Antelope, 10 Wheat. 121.
71 Ibid.
72 Ibid., 10 Wheat. 121.
73 Ogden, v. Saunders, , 12 Wheat. 338 (1827).Google Scholar
74 United States v. Maurice, , 2 Brock. Rep. 109.Google Scholar
75 Cohens, v. Virginia, , 6 Wheat. 422.Google Scholar
