Insular Cases) is ever determined without liberal quotations from the opinions of Marshall, and all conclusions as to powers and sovereignties and Federal strength are founded upon them. There may not be anything so frightful in the idea of such imperialism. The Constitution is what it is construed to be, as long as the people submit to the construction. There might be some point where it should be incumbent upon one people in the course of human events to dissolve the political ties which bind it to another; but with us the causes of physical division have passed away, the power and glory of this nation now depends upon its unity; its expansion by acquisition, by purchase or by consent, has steadily proceeded until now. The argument of unconstitutionality has been worn threadbare, but still goes on. It is now a question of honor and justice and right and humanity. How far shall it go? Shall other aspirations, after freedom from foreign bondage, be swallowed up in our freedom? Shall the blessings of liberty and free institutions be forced upon unwilling peoples? Shall bruised reeds be broken and smoking flax be quenched in the name of humanity and freedom and civilization? These constitutional questions now before the courts are not as to the power but as to the effect of conquest and expansion. When does the newly-acquired territory become a part of the United States? May it be, as we were in the times of reconstruction, a part of the government for some purposes and a conquered province for others? These questions are now in the bosoms of "the living oracles," the Justices of the Supreme Court.

I hope it is not necessary for me to say that in trying to point out to you the influence of this great judge in fixing in the minds of a majority of the people these prin

ciples of consolidated sovereignty, I am making no complaints or strictures, and not at this late day expressing a regret not even "warming the thin hands of age over the smouldering embers of the past." I am simply a philosopher, looking at causes and speculating upon effects.

I stand upon the parol of an old Confederate soldier. I have too often sworn allegiance to the Constitution, as it is now, with its judicial interpretations and its amendments, to forget my obligation, but I know this: I have always been true to its principles as I understood them, and as I understand them. There is no time to speculate upon what might have been if Oliver Ellsworth had held on a few months longer and President Jefferson instead of President Adams had filled the vacancy. The dead past has buried its dead, and there was many and many

an one.

This is an indissoluble Union of indestructible States, and the imprint of John Marshall's pen, which was mightier than the sword, is upon it all.

But there is so much to say. I have not told you how, on the other hand, he moulded this same Constitution and its eleven amendments to be the very ægis of all our personal rights of life, liberty and property and reputation and the pursuit of happiness-how, after him, this same court permitted no military commission in time of peace to put its hand upon the citizen, no State or the General Government to deprive one of his privileges or immunities but by the law of the land-how our rights of property are held as sacred under this Constitution as was the humble cot of the English peasant, with regard to which the elder Pitt once said: "The poorest man in

his cottage may bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the King of England cannot enter. All his force dare not cross the threshold of this ruined tenement."

It was in regard to this personal right of the Englishman the same great statesman also said: "Those iron barons (for so I may call them when compared with the silken barons of modern days) were the guardians of the people, and three words of their barbarous Latin, 'Nullus liber homo,' are worth all the classics."

How it opened the prison doors to Milligan and Cummings; how it welcomed back Campbell and Garland to its bar in the face of ex post facto statutes; how it held sacred the right of property in the Lees!

While to the influence of Marshall as much as to that of any other man we may attribute the consolidated strength of this vast empire, to his influence we are also much indebted for the muniments of local government and vested right and personal liberty.

There are one or two of the ancient landmarks still left, such as election of Senators and of Presidents by the States, which, strange to say, our own people seem most anxious to remove.

And it is because of all these things that everywhere in the land to-day the courts and congresses and legislatures have joined the members of the legal profession in doing honor to the memory of this strong man whose powerful intellect controlled the wills, while the loveliness of his personal life captivated the affections, of the people.

Marshall Day was celebrated in the town of Tarboro at a meeting held at the court-house, John L. Bridgers presiding, at which Paul Jones delivered an address on the life and labors of Chief Justice Marshall. Short addresses were also made by Frederick Philips, L. L. Staton and Mr. Bridgers.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

Marshall Day was celebrated in the Hall of the House of Representatives at Columbia. The Supreme Court of the State, at the request of the Bar of the State, ordered a special session to be held on Monday, the fourth day of February, to do honor to the memory of Chief Justice Marshall. Pursuant to order, the Supreme Court of the State assembled at eight o'clock p. m., and adjourned to the Hall of the House of Representatives. Mr. G. Lamb Buist of the Charleston Bar introduced, with fitting remarks, Charles H. Simonton, United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, as the orator of the occasion. At the conclusion of the address of Judge Simonton, on motion of Mr. B. L. Abney of the Richland Bar, the court entered a minute extending to the orator for his address the appreciation and thanks of the members of the Bar of the State.

Address of Charles H. Simonton.

It has been frequently remarked that reputations acquired in the practice of the law are of an ephemeral character.

A great lawyer, in his day, commands the respect, confidence, and it may be the veneration, of his contemporaries. He fills the public mind, and his services are sought and valued. When his life has ended, others step into his place. His name soon becomes mere tradition. In a generation or two he is forgotten. Nor is this less the case with great judges. It is true that more frequently than is