Marshall"s defense of the army law was scarcely less powerful than his speech in the Robins case; and it reveals much more clearly Marshall"s distinctively military temper of mind.
Congress had scarcely organized when the question came up of the reduction of the army. On this there was extended debate. Nicholas of Virginia offered a resolution to repeal the act for the provisional army of which Washington had been the Commander-in-Chief. The expense of this military establishment greatly alarmed Nicholas, who presented an array of figures on which his anxieties fed.[1080] It was nonsense, he held, to keep this army law on the statute books for its effect on the negotiations with France.
Marshall promptly answered. "If it was true," said he, "that America, commencing her negotiation with her present military force would appear in the armor which she could only wear for a day, the situation of our country was lamentable indeed. If our debility was really such ... our situation was truly desperate." There was "no cheaper mode of self-defense"; to abandon it "amounted to a declaration that we were unable to defend ourselves." It was not necessary to repeal the law entirely or to put it, "not modified," in full effect. Marshall suggested a middle ground by which "the law might be modified so as to diminish the estimated expense, without dismissing the troops already in actual service."[1081]
Answering the favorite argument made by the opponents of the army, that no power can invade America, he asked: "What a.s.surance have gentlemen that invasion is impracticable?" Who knows the real conditions in Europe?--the "effect of the late decisive victories of France?... It was by no means certain" that these had not resulted in the release of forces which she "may send across the Atlantic."
Why be precipitate? asked Marshall; by the opening of the next campaign in Europe we should have more information. Let us look the situation in the face: "We are, in fact, at war with France, though it is not declared in form"; commerce is suspended; naval battles are being fought; property is "captured and confiscated"; prisoners are taken and incarcerated. America is of "vast importance to France"; indeed, "the monopoly of our commerce in time of peace" is invaluable to both France and England "for the formation of a naval power."
The Republicans, he said, had "urged not only that the army is useless,"
but that we could not afford the expense of maintaining it. "Suppose this had been the language of "75!" exclaimed Marshall. "Suppose a gentleman had risen on the floor of Congress, to compare our revenues with our expenses--what would have been the result of the calculation?"
It would have shown that we could not afford to strike for our independence! Yet we did strike and successfully. "If vast exertions were then made to acquire independence, will not the same exertions be now made to maintain it?"
The question was, "whether self-government and national liberty be worth the money which must be expended to preserve them?"[1082] He exposed the sophistry of an expensive economy. It should never be forgotten that true economy did not content itself with inquiring into the mere saving of the present moment; it should take an enlarged view of the subject, and determine, on correct calculations, whether the consequence of a present saving might not be a much more considerable future expenditure.
Marshall admitted that the reduction of the army would certainly diminish the expense of the present year, but contended that the present saving would bear no proportion to the immense waste of blood, as well as treasure, which it might occasion.[1083] "And consider," he exclaimed, "the effect the army already had produced on the mind and conduct of France. While America was humbly supplicating for peace, and that her complaints might be heard, France spurned her contemptuously and refused to enter on a discussion of differences, unless that discussion was preceded by a substantial surrender of the essential attributes of independence."
"America was at length goaded into resistance," a.s.serted Marshall, "and resolved on the system of defense, of which the army now sought to be disbanded forms a part." What was the result? "Immediately the tone of France was changed, and she consented to treat us as an independent nation. Her depredations indeed did not cease; she continued still to bring war upon us; but although peace was not granted, the door to peace was opened."
If "a French army should be crossing the Atlantic to invade our territory," would anybody insist on disbanding our army? "Was it wise, then, to do so while such a probability existed?" In a few months we should know; and, if danger should disappear, "the army expires by the law which gave it being." Meantime the expense would be trifling.[1084]
In a private letter Marshall states, with even more balance, his views of the conflicting questions of the expense involved in, and the necessity for, military equipment. He regrets that a loan is "absolutely unavoidable"; but "attention must be paid to our defenses":--
"The whole world is in arms and no rights are respected but those that [are] maintained by force. In such a state of things we dare not be totally unmindful of ourselves or totally neglectful of that military position to which, in spite of the prudence and pacific disposition of our government, we may be driven for the preservation of our liberty and national independence.
"Altho" we ought never to make a loan if it be avoidable, yet when forc"d to it much real consolation is to be deriv"d from the future resources of America. These resources, if we do not throw them away [by]
dissolving the union, are invaluable. It is not to be doubted that in twenty years from this time the United States would be less burthen"d by a revenue of twenty millions than now by a revenue of ten. It is the plain & certain consequence of our increasing population & our increasing wealth....
"The system of defence which has rendered this measure necessary was not [only] essential to our character as an independent nation, but it has actually sav"d more money to the body of the people than has been expended & has very probably prevented either open war or such national degradation as would make us the objects of general contempt and injury.
"A bill to stop recruiting in the twelve additional regiments has been brought in and will pa.s.s without opposition. An attempt was made absolutely to disband them, but [it] was negativ"d. It has been so plainly prov"d to us that french aggression has been greatly increased, & that their contemptuous refusal even to treat with us as an independent nation has been entirely occasioned by a belief that we could not resist them; & it is so clear that their present willingness to treat is occasioned by perceiving our determination to defend ourselves, that it was thought unwise to change materially our system at the commencement of negotiation.
"In addition to this it had much weight, that we should know in a few months the facts of our negotiation & should then be able to judge whether the situation & temper of France rendered an invasion pro[bable]. Then would be the time to decide on diminishing [or]
augmenting our military forces. A French 64 has it is said arrived in the west indies & three frigates expected."[1085]
Although the debate dragged on and the army was attacked and defended with brilliant ability, Marshall"s argument remained the Gibraltar of the Administration, upon which all the a.s.saults of the Republicans were centered unavailingly. For his army speech was never answered. Only once more during this debate did Marshall rise and then but briefly, to bring his common sense to bear upon the familiar contention that, if the country is in danger, its citizens will rise spontaneously to defend it.
He said that it would be absurd to call men to arms, as had been done, and then "dismiss them before the service was performed ... merely because their zeal could be depended on" hereafter. He "hoped the national spirit would never yield to that false policy."[1086]
The fourth important subject in which Marshall was a decisive influence was the National Bankruptcy Law, pa.s.sed at this session of Congress. He was the second member of the committee that drafted this legislation.[1087] For an entire month the committee worked on the bill and reported it on January 6, 1800.[1088] After much debate, which is not given in the official reports, the bill pa.s.sed the House on February 21 and the Senate March 28.[1089]
While the "Annals" do not show it, we know from the testimony of the Speaker of the House that Marshall was the vital force that shaped this first National Bankruptcy Act. He was insistent that the law should not be too extensive in its provisions for the curing of bankruptcy, and it was he who secured the trial by jury as to the fact of bankruptcy.
"It [the Bankruptcy Law] is far from being such an one as I wished,"
writes Sedgwick. "The _acts_ in curing bankruptcy are too restricted, and the trial of the question Bankrupt or not, by jury, will be found inconvenient, embarra.s.sing & dilatory. The mischief was occasioned by Virginia Theory. It was the whim of General Marshall; with him a _sine qua non_ of a.s.sent to the measure, & without him the bill must have been lost, for it pa.s.sed the House by my casting vote."
"Besides the bankrupt bill, we have pa.s.sed [only] one more of great importance," writes the Speaker of the House in a review of the work of the session.[1090] Much of the Speaker"s summary is devoted to Marshall.
Sedgwick was greatly disappointed with the laws pa.s.sed, with the exception of the Bankruptcy Bill "and one other."[1091] "All the rest we have made here are, as to any permanently beneficial effects, hardly worth the parchment on which they are written. The reason of this feebleness is a real feebleness of character in the house." Sedgwick lays most of this at Marshall"s door, and in doing so, draws a vivid picture of Marshall the man, as well as of Marshall the legislator:--
"Marshall was looked up to as the man whose great and commanding genius was to enlighten & direct the national councils. This was the general sentiment, while some, and those of no inconsiderable importance, calculating on his foolish declaration, relative to the alien & sedition laws, thought him temporizing while others deemed him feeble.
"None had in my opinion justly appreciated his character. As his character has stamped itself on the measures of the present session, I am desirous of letting you know how I view it.
"He is a man of a very affectionate disposition, of great simplicity of manners and honest & honorable in all his conduct.
"He is attached to pleasures, with convivial habits strongly fixed.
"He is indolent, therefore; and indisposed to take part in the common business of the house.
"He has a strong attachment to popularity but indisposed to sacrifice to it his integrity; hence it is that he is disposed on all popular subjects to feel the public pulse and hence results indecision and _an expression_ of doubt.
"Doubts suggested by him create in more feeble minds those which are irremovable. He is disposed ... to express great respect for the sovereign people, and to quote their opinions as an evidence of truth.
"The latter is of all things the most destructive of personal independence & of that weight of character which a great man ought to possess.
"This gentleman, when aroused, has strong reasoning powers; they are almost unequalled. But before they are excited, he has frequently, nearly, destroyed any impression from them."[1092]
Such was Marshall"s work during his six months" service in Congress, the impression he made, and the estimate of him by his party friends. His "convivial habits, strongly fixed," his great good nature, his personal lovableness, were noted by his a.s.sociates in the National House of Representatives quite as much as they had been observed and commented on by his fellow members in the Virginia Legislature and by his friends and neighbors in Richmond.
The public qualities which his work in Congress again revealed in brilliant light were his extraordinary independence of thought and action, his utter fearlessness, and his commanding mental power. But his personal character and daily manners applied a soothing ointment to any irritation which his official att.i.tude and conduct on public questions created in the feelings of his a.s.sociates.
So came the day of adjournment of Congress; and with it the next step which Fate had arranged for John Marshall.
FOOTNOTES:
[993] Sedgwick to King, Dec. 29, 1799; King, iii, 163.
[994] Cabot to King, Jan. 20, 1800; _ib._, 184.
[995] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 187.
[996] Wolcott to Ames, Dec. 29, 1799; Gibbs, ii, 314.
[997] _Annals_, 6th Cong. 1st Sess., 194. The speech as reported pa.s.sed with little debate.
[998] Wolcott to Ames, Dec. 29, 1799; Gibbs, ii, 314. And see McMaster, ii, 452.
[999] Levin Powell to Major Burr Powell, Dec. 11, 1799; _Branch Historical Papers_, ii, 232.
[1000] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 194.
[1001] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 194-97.
[1002] _Ib._, 194.
[1003] Wolcott to Ames, Dec. 29, 1799; Gibbs, ii, 314.
[1004] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 198.