of reasoning and judicial style. Commencing with Marbury vs. Madison, came in quick succession many cases of constitutional, national and general law. Marshall, like Lords Holt and Mansfield, was called upon to frame a system of jurisprudence. Pinkney has said: "He was born to be Chief Justice of any country in which he lived." During the thirty-five years he sat, as admitted by his learned associates, his was the master mind, the controlling influence in their deliberations. The first volume of Cranch's Reports embraces the work of two full years-all the opinions, save one, from the pen of Marshall. Ogden vs. Sanders is the only case involving a constitutional question upon which the majority of the court ever differed from the Chief Justice. Eminent lawyers consider that in his dissent Marshall had the weight of the argument. A word to his duties on the circuit:

Presiding over trials by jury, patient, courteous, considerate of the bar, dignified without effort, quick to grasp the issues, prompt in ruling, serenely impartial, showing the most absolute courage and independence. May we cite the dramatic trial of Aaron Burr, the charge high treason-the penalty death-the defendant Aaron Burr. This defendant, a gallant veteran of the Revolution, as Vice-President, had presided over the Senate of the United States "with the dignity and impartiality of an angel;" within one vote of defeating Thomas Jefferson as President of the United States; with qualities to win the reason of men and charm the hearts of women; defended by Edmund Randolph, Luther Martin and other able counsel, yet one of the ablest of his counsel. President Jefferson believed him guilty and wished his conviction; the American people excited and demanding a conviction; the most distinguished counsel among them, the brilliant and gifted William Wirt, urging the cause of the government.

Although the mob without could procure the conviction and sentence to ignominious death of the guiltless and the gentle Nazarene before the Roman Pilate! Although the convincing eloquence of Burke, Fox and Sheridan and the influence of Pitt could not as against the public wish procure of England's August House of Peers the conviction of the plunderer of India, guilty,

yet this defendant, Burr, whose hands were red with the blood of Hamilton, one of the dearest of the personal and political friends of Marshall's life, was acquitted before Marshall after a trial Godlike in its impartiality. It would be inappropriate here to even enumerate the multitude of prize, commercial, insurance and land cases ruled by the Supreme Court in the time of Chief Justice Marshall. His opinions during nearly thirty-five years on the bench ran through some twenty-five volumes of reports. His great fame rests especially upon his constitutional decisions. Fifty-one decisions upon the law of the Federal Constitution were rendered in his time. In thirty-four of these the opinion was delivered by the Chief Justice-twice as many as those rendered by all the other judges. Here the great Chief Justice was at home, here his emphatically legal and statesman-like mind was at its congenial work. He found the Constitution without construction, opinion as to its powers widely divided, at the end of his long and eminent career he left a harmonious system of Constitutional law. In the seventy-fifth year of his age he discharged his last public service other than that judicial. A convention sat for a revision of the Constitution of Virginia. Ex-Presidents Madison and Munroe-physically enfeebled with years and infirmities, at the solicitation of their fellow citizens, emerged from the congenial serenity of their retired lives to again, as members of this convention, serve their countrymen upon the same call Chief Justice Marshall was also there.

There not merely as honorary, venerated statesmen of the past, but there with their wisdom, their love of country, their conservatism to labor-to make another offering on the altar of their beloved State. As these venerable patriots sit in solemn council, aiding, with their wisdom and experience in constructing a constitution for Virginia, tempting is it to linger with a scene so inspiring in its patriotism. It must suffice to say Marshall here contributed another valuable service from his useful life.

Enamored with this fascinating subject, too much time I have taken, perhaps extravagance used. If extravagant, Story, who sat with him, Rawle and Chief Justice Waite, who spoke to his life and character fifty years after his death, were also extravagant.

This life so ennobling in its contemplation, so useful in its public service, with its simplicity of character, its tenderness for youth, its respect for age, and its chivalrous deference to women, its quiet, reasonable belief in the beautiful religion of the Christ went out in the city of Philadelphia-"The star of the mortal sank into the sunrise of immortality"-the same old Liberty Bell which joyously rang out the declaration of our country's freedom announced to his fellow citizens that the judicial and earthly career of the great jurist was closed-the old bell was rent in tolling-it has hung in silence since.

ADDRESS

OF

MOSES HALLETT,

PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION.

The Thirteenth General Assembly of the State of Colorado was not distinguished for good manners or dignified deportment as a deliberative body, but it has left a record for diligence and fidelity to the public interests which should command the respect and approval of the people of the State. The subjects considered by the Assembly were of the greatest importance and the laws enacted are in each instance better than those which they supersede.

The measure for consolidating the Court of Appeals with the Supreme Court which was begun at the annual meeting of this Association last year, and completed at a called meeting of the Association in December, was not adopted, but the circumstances indicate that by another and stronger effort before the next Assembly a better result may be attained. Last year the subject was new and but few members of the Association had considered it so far as to be able to express an opinion. After a short debate, in the course of which widely divergent views were manifested, the subject was referred to a committee with instructions to report to the Association in December. At the December meeting the report of the committee was adopted without much discussion, and so it can not be said that the Association has at any time fully considered the measure. When the bill came before the Assembly a senator, who is also a member of this Association, put in a bill of different tenor which appeared to antagonize the other and probably contributed to its defeat. As therefore mem

bers of the Association are not yet in accord on the subject of a single court of review in the State, the work of the Association is now only begun. Dual courts of review have not been satisfactory in any of the States and it is not probable that they can be made so in this jurisdiction. I therefore recommend that the work of the Association towards consolidating the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals be continued with a view to secure united action of the bar in support of some measure which will accomplish the result. Whenever the bar shall be in accord on the subject and fully impressed with its importance the bill may be passed probably without dissent.

In this connection I wish to suggest that the bill put before the last Assembly should be enlarged to comprehend the manner of selecting judges of all courts in the State. In my judgment the selection of judges is a matter of more importance than their number or the organization of courts. My predecessor in his address to you last year, seemed to favor the appointment of judges by executive authority, and for life or for a long term. I am unable to accept his argument because I believe that in this day, executive appointments to the bench are usually made upon political grounds and the appointee is in almost every instance a politician. In support of this assertion I will refer only to the police magistrate of the city of Denver; but it would be easy to follow the history of such appointments up, or down, to the President of the United States, and demonstrate the fact all along the line. In these times the people will be able to select better judges than any Governor or President, if only they can be freed from party control in making the selection. The time has not long passed when judicial offices were regarded as entirely outside of politics. Some of you may be able to recall instances in which judges were elected or appointed to office by men who were opposed to them politically, but such selections are not of recent date. At this time judicial office is as much a private snap as any other office under the government, and it is more often taken by a ward heeler or other bumptious political demagogue, than by a capable, honest, and truthful lawyer. I dwell not on this condition of