When absent from his wife, Chief Justice Marshall, a most dutiful husband, wrote to her quite frequently, cheering her weary hours of pain with graphic and lively sayings and doings at the nation's capital. He usually called his wife Polly. The following is a part of a letter to Mrs. Mary W. Marshall, Richmond, Virginia:

WASHINGTON, Feb., 1829.

Our sick judges have at length arrived and we are as busy as men can well be.

I do not walk so far as I formerly did, but I still keep up the pastime of walking in the morning. We dined on Friday last with the President, and I sat between Mrs. Adams and the lady of a member of Congress whom I found quite agreeable as well as handsome. Mrs. Adams was as cheerful as if she was to continue in the great house for the ensuing four years. The President also is in good health and spirits. I perceive no difference in consequence of the turn the late election has taken. General Jackson is expected in the city within a fortnight and is to put up in this house. I shall, of course, wait on him. It is said he feels the loss of Mrs. Jackson very seriously. It would be strange if he did not. A man who at his age loses a good wife loses a friend whose place cannot be supplied. I dine to-morrow with the British Minister and the next day again with the President. I have never before dined with the President twice during the same session of the Court. That on Friday was an official dinner. The invitation for Tuesday is not for all the other judges, and I consider it a personal civility. Tell Mr. Call all the Secretaries are sick, and Mr. Clay among them. He took cold by attending the Colonization Society and has been indisposed ever since. The town, it is said, was never so full as at present. The expectation is that it will overflow on the 3d of March. The whole world, it is said, will be here. This, however, will present no temptation to you to come. I wish I could leave it all and come to you. How much more delightful would it be to sit by you than to witness all the pomp and parade of the inauguration.3

39

39 The above, a part of a letter, was contributed to the Green Bag by Sallie E. Marshall, a great-granddaughter of the Chief Justice. It is printed in the December number, 1896.

From 1788 to 1797 Marshall practiced law with the earnest desire, as he said, to accumulate sufficient fortune to insure the comfort and happiness of his wife and children. About this time he wrote the following letter.

LETTER FROM JOHN MARSHALL TO

JUDGE ARCHIBALD STUART

I cannot appear for Donaghoe. I do not decline his business from any objection to his bank. To that I should like very well to have free access, and would certainly discount from it as largely as he would permit; but I am already fixed by Rankin, and as those who are once in the bank do not, I am told, readily get out again, I despair of being ever able to touch the guineas of Donaghoe.

Shall we never see you again in Richmond? I was very much rejoiced when I heard that you were happily married, but if that amounts to a ne exeat, which is to confine you entirely to your side of the mountain, I shall be selfish enough to regret your good fortune, and almost to wish you had found some little crooked rib among the fish and oysters which would once a year drag you into this part of our terraqueous globe.

You have forgotten, I believe, the solemn compact we made to take a journey to Philadelphia this winter, and superintend for a while the proceedings of Congress. I wish very much to see you. I want to observe how much honester men you and I are (than) half one's acquaintance. Seriously, there appears to me every day to be more folly, envy, malice, and damned rascality in the world than there was the day before; and I do verily begin to think that plain, downright honesty and unintriguing integrity will be kicked out of doors.

We fear, and not without reason, a war. The man does not live who wishes for peace more than I do, but the outrages committed upon us are beyond human bearing.

Farewell.

Pray heaven we may weather the storm.

Yours,

J. MARSHALL. 40

40 The fashion of Marshall's wit and a glimpse of his friendly geniality are shown in the above letter. This letter is published in the Green Bag, Vol. 10.

EXTRACT OF A LETTER

From John Marshall, Esq., Secretary of State, to Rufus King, Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States at London

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, September 20, 1800.

The impressment of our seamen is an injury of very serious magnitude, which deeply affects the feelings and the honour of the nation.

This valuable class of men is composed of natives and foreigners who engage voluntarily in our service.

No right has been asserted to impress the natives of America. Yet they are impressed, they are dragged on board British ships of war, with the evidence of citizenship in their hands, and forced by violence there to serve, until conclusive testimonials of their birth can be obtained. These must most generally be sought for on this side of the Atlantick. In the mean time acknowledged violence is practised on a free citizen of the United States, by compelling him to engage, and to continue in foreign service. Although the lords of the admiralty uniformly direct their discharge on the production of this testimony, yet many must perish unrelieved, and all are detained a considerable time in lawless and injurious confinement.

It is the duty as well as the right of a friendly nation, to require that measures be taken by the British government to prevent the continued repetition of such violence by its agents. This can only be done by punishing and frowning on those who perpetrate it. The mere release of the injured, after a long course of service and of suffering is no compensation for the past, and no security for the future. It is impossible not to believe, that the decisive interference of the government in this respect, would prevent a practice, the continuance of which must inevitably produce discord between two nations which ought to be the friends of each other.

Those seamen, who, born in a foreign country, have been adopted by this, were either the subjects of Britain or some other power.

The right to impress those who were British subjects has been asserted, and the right to impress those of every other nation has not been disclaimed.

Neither the one practice nor the other can be justified.

With the naturalization of foreigners, no other nation can

interfere further than the rights of that other are affected. The rights of Britain are certainly not affected by the naturalization of other than British subjects. Consequently those persons who, according to our laws, are citizens, must be so considered by Britain, and by every other power not having a conflicting claim to the person.

The United States therefore require positively, that their seamen who are not British subjects, whether born in America or elsewhere, shall be exempt from impressments.

The case of British subjects, whether naturalized or not, is more questionable; but the right even to impress them is denied. The practice of the British government itself, may certainly in a controversy, with that government, be relied on. The privileges it claims and exercises ought to be ceded to others. To deny this would be to deny the equality of nations, and to make it a question of power and not of right.

If the practice of the British government may be quoted, that practice is to maintain and defend in their sea service all those, of any nation, who have voluntarily engaged in it, or who, according to their laws, have become British subjects.

Alien seamen, not British subjects, engaged in our merchant service, ought to be equally exempt with citizens from impressments: we have a right to engage them, and have a right too and an interest in their persons to the extent of the service contracted to be performed. Britain has no pretext of right to their persons or to their service. To tear them, then, from our possession, is at the same time an insult and an injury. It is an act of violence for which there exists no palliative.

We know well that the difficulty of distinguishing between native Americans and British subjects has been used, with respect to natives, as an apology for the injuries complained of. It is not pretended that this apology can be extended to the case of foreigners, and even with respect to natives we doubt the existence of the difficulty alleged. We know well that among that class of people who are seamen, we can readily distinguish between a native American and a person raised to manhood in Great Britain or Ireland; and we do not perceive any reason why the capacity of making this distinction should not be possessed in the same degree by one nation as by the other.

If, therefore, no regulation can be formed which shall effectually secure all seamen on board American merchantmen, we have a right to expect from the justice of the British government, from its regard for the friendship of the United States and its own honour, that it will manifest the sincerity of its wishes to repress this offense, by punishing those who commit it.

We hope, however, that an agreement may be entered into satisfactory and beneficial to both parties. The article which appears to have been transmitted by my predecessor, while it satisfies this country, will probably restore to the naval service of Britain a greater number of seamen than will be lost by it. Should we even be mistaken in this calculation, yet the difference cannot be put in competition with the mischief which may result from the irritation justly excited, by this practice, throughout the United States. The extent and the justice of the resentments it produces, may be estimated, in Britain, by inquiring what impressions would be made on them by similar conduct on the part of this govern

ment.

Should we impress from the merchant service of Britain, not only Americans but foreigners, and even British subjects, how long would such a course of injury unredressed be permitted to pass unrevenged? How long would the government be content with unsuccessful remonstrance and unavailing memorials?

I believe, sir, that only the most prompt correction of, compensation for, the abuse, would be admitted as satisfaction in such a case.

If the principles of this government forbid it to retaliate by impressions, there is yet another mode which might be resorted to. We might authorize our ships of war, though not to impress, yet to recruit sailors on board British merchantmen. Such are the inducements to enter into our naval service that we believe even this practice would very seriously affect the navigation of Britain. How, sir, would it be received by the British nation?

Is it not more advisable to desist from, and to take effectual measures to prevent, an prevent, an acknowledged wrong, than by perseverance in that wrong to excite against themselves the well founded resentments of America, and force