STATE OF OHIO.

At the annual meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association, July, 1900, it was voted to hold a special meeting of the association in Columbus on February 4, 1901, appropriately to observe Marshall Day. John A. Shauck, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State, was selected to deliver the oration. An executive committee arranged the details. The place selected for the address and proceedings on Marshall Day was the auditorium of the Board of Trade in Columbus. The address was followed in the evening by a banquet at the Neil House, at which James H. Hoyt, of Cleveland, presided. Sentiments were responded to as follows: "Judicial Independence," by William R. Day, formerly Secretary of State of the United States and now judge of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals; "Ohio's Place in the Supreme Court of the United States," by W. Z. Davis, of the Ohio Supreme Court; "The Part of the Bar with the Work and History of the Supreme Court of the United States," by Judson Harmon, formerly Attorney-General of the United States; "Trials of American Lawyers," by Thomas E. Powell, of the Columbus bar; "The Ordinance of 1787," by His Excellency, Governor Nash; and "The Bench as it seems to Me," by Clarence Brown, of the Toledo bar. Remarks were also made by Edward Colston, of Cincinnati, a grandnephew of Chief Justice Marshall.1

The proceedings at Columbus, including the main address and responses so far as reported, were published at length in the Weekly Law Bulletin and Ohio Law Journal, vol. 45, No. 8, February 25, 1901.

Chief Justice Shauck was introduced by Oscar T. Martin, of Springfield, one of the vice-presidents of the association.

Address of John A. Shauck.

The beginning of the century which has just closed was approximately the beginning of the era of constitutional government, according to the American understanding of that phrase. A century ago to-day its development received a mighty impulse when John Marshall, by appointment from the second President, became the fourth Chief Justice of the United States in actual service, the fifth in appointment. The propriety of his selection for that high station was generally recognized at the time by all who were in full sympathy with the complex system of government which had been undertaken. It became more and more manifest as the thirty-five years of his service passed, each bringing him opportunities to contribute something more toward finishing and securing the great work of nation-building which had been commenced in the arduous struggle of the Revolution and advanced by the adoption of the Constitution. The value of his services and the high character of his contributions toward the development of the important departments of the law upon which he left the deepest impress have so grown in appreciation during the sixtyfive years which have passed since his death, that his appointment is now recognized as the principal ground of public gratitude to a President whose administration was characterized throughout by intelligence and patriotism. His mastery of the principles of constitutional and international law, and his ability to apply them accurately, do not quite cease to appear phenomenal, even

after the most careful study of his character, his natural endowments and his appropriate preparation.

His birth was twenty years before the Declaration of Independence, and somewhat nearer the beginning of the armed conflict between Great Britain and the American colonies. His education was the best available where he lived, embracing English, mathematics, history, more than the rudiments of Latin, and a profound knowledge of the English classics. He began the study of law at the age of eighteen years, but had made little progress when Lexington proclaimed that the controversy between England and the colonies had reached its last and most dramatic stage. He had studied carefully the merits of the controversy to the conclusion that the aggressions of England justified the colonies in resisting to the extreme of war. With respect to the inheritance of moral qualities one may be an heir of the living. At the age of nineteen years he entered the conflict as a lieutenant in a Virginia regiment in which his father was a field officer.

After the engagement at Great Bridge, where a patriot victory drove the royal governor to the King's fleet, he joined the army in the north. He tasted victory with Wayne at Stony Point and with Washington at Monmouth. He was tested in the reverses at Brandywine and Germantown. He was disciplined in the gloom and the sufferings of Valley Forge. Notwithstanding his youth, he was distinguished among the officers of that army for bravery, for intelligence and for serenity in the midst of vexations - distinguished for the qualities which were subsequently to make his name so illustrious. That he attracted the admiration and confidence of the commander-in-chief was of abiding importance, for it was to

call him into the public service in critical periods which were to follow the war.

On the reopening of the courts of Virginia after the surrender of Cornwallis he began the practice of law. His professional studies had chiefly been pursued amid the turmoil and distractions of the war, and he could not have brought to the bar the fruits of extensive research.

His grasp of legal principles was intuitive. His aptitude for his chosen profession was apparent. Hosts of friends were attracted to him because of his splendid intellect, his lofty character and his genial nature. He at once took position in the foremost rank of the profession and fortified it at every trial of strength. He was entirely without those arts which are commonly designated by the phrase "the graces of oratory." The character and habits of his mind were already established. His talent was analytical and constructive. He would have been metaphysical if he had not been intensely practical. He never interrupted the flow of his own discourse. He restated no proposition. He made no room for catch phrases. His sentences were incisive, and every sentence was a step in the direct and resistless progress of his mind from premises to conclusion. A contemporary aptly lik ened one of his discourses to the easy but unremitting advance of the dawn. His speeches, like his opinions, abound in sententious questions, not only those general questions which comprehend cases and subjects, but those subordinate questions which occur in the process of analysis and argument, so stated as to suggest inevitable

answers.

His aptness for his chosen profession was illustrated by conspicuous triumphs even in his youth. His devotion to it was shown by numerous refusals of tempting invita

tions to enter public life. But the dominant question of the times was in his estimation of vital importance. It was whether the liberty which had been achieved by the Revolution should be enshrined in a government capable of preserving it, or be permitted to fall into anarchy and disappear in despotism. Liberty had sojurned upon the earth before, and such had been its fate. He had seen the war of the Revolution prolonged through unnecessary years. He had passed through, defeats which would have been victories if there had been a government authorized to command the military resources of the people. He was an appreciative and humiliated witness to the embarrassment which resulted from the inability of Congress to perform its treaty obligation because it was without power to levy a tax. All about him his maimed and broken companions in arms were in want because Congress was unable to pay them the promised compensation for military services. He had seen a nation conceived in patriotism born in repudiation. He could not refuse to aid a cause which he believed to be necessary to complete the work of the Revolution. He accordingly accepted service as a member of the legislature of Virginia, where he was tireless in his efforts to secure a favorable response to the calls of Congress. Everywhere he was an earnest advocate of a competent general gov

ernment.

Upon the submission of the proposed Constitution he became an earnest advocate of its ratification. In 1788 he entered the Virginia convention which was called to decide whether that instrument should be ratified. Though known to favor ratification, he was chosen by a constituency opposed to ratification.

If his career had ended with the Virginia convention,