« ForrigeFortsæt »
2. His discretion is not limited to cases of danger to the deposits, but extends over the whole field of political discretion.
3. He must bonâ fide exercise it independently and for himself.
4. The President has no right to interfere in the business in any shape.
5. If he does, and the Secretary acts in pursuance of his orders, influence, or control, and without an independent exercise of his own judgment, he violates his trust. It is a wrong to the Bank and to its rights.
6. The State Banks have no proper authority to enter into such contracts, as are stated, and the Secretary has as little right permanently to bind the United States in any arrangements of this sort. It is beside the common duties of his office, and requires express authority.
I write you in very great haste, and merely my first thoughts, being overwhelmed with business, and driven to the top of my speed. Yours always, most affectionately,
The following extract from a letter of J. W. Treadwell, Esq., is interesting in this connection. He says,
“ An event occurred while your father was President of the Merchants’ Bank in Salem, and residing in Cambridge, which I ought not to omit. It is well known that on the accession of General Jackson to the Presidency, he adopted the rule of “rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies.' The Merchants’ Bank had always, since its establishment, been the depository of the funds of the United States Treasury, which had often been large, and contributed to swell its dividends. A memorial was forwarded by one of the other banks in Salem, asking that the United States deposits should be removed to it, and among other reasons for the removal, it stated, that the President and Cashier of the Merchants' Bank, particularly the latter, being bitter, uncompromising opponents of the administration, their whole means and influence are employed in thwarting its measures, and endeavoring to excite the people against it.' An answer to this memorial was drawn up, by direction of the Board, and forwarded to your father for his inspection and approval, and I have the original draft now before me, with this interlineation upon the charge in his own handwriting:
• The directors hardly know in what manner to answer the charge, without using the most severe language, at once expressive of astonishment and indignation. In relation to the President of the Bank, the high judicial office which he holds places him beyond the sphere of political excitements and connections, and it is notorious, that he has withdrawn from political strife and party exertions ever since he first took his seat on the Bench. At the same time, he claims, in common with every other citizen, the right decently to express his opinions in regard to public men and measures whenever he may deem it expedient. But that he has ever exerted any influences, as President, in or out of the Bank, to the injury of the present administration or its friends, is utterly false. There is not even a color of pretence to sustain the charge.?
“ I ought also to say, in justice to the high-minded courtesy of the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. McLane, that a copy of this memorial was at once transmitted by him to the Merchants’ Bank. It is almost needless to say, that the public money was left undisturbed in the Merchants’ Bank.”
PROFESSORIAL AND JUDICIAL LIFE.
PUBLICATION OF THE CONFLICT OF LAWS - RECEPTION OF IT Notices — PREFACE - LETTERS RELATING TO IT FROM CHANCELLOR KENT, JUDGE HOPKINSON, Mons. Felix, J. FERGUSSON An Essay ON “ STATESMEN: THEIR RARENESS AND IMPORTANCE – LETTER RELATING TO IT FROM CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL CORRESPONDENCE ON THE FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP GRANTED BY THE CHARTER OF MASSACHUSETTS COLONY ARGUMENT ON THE SUBJECT — LABOR - WHEATON V. PETERS — DEATH OF MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON – CHANGES IN THE COURT – LECTURE ON THE SCIENCE OF GOVERNMENT - - EXTRACT — CONSTITUTIONAL Class Book — MR. SUMNER'S CONNECTION WITH THE LAW SCHOOL RESIGNATION OF MR. DUNLAP - BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF MY FATHER BY MR. GREENLEAF – EXTRADITION OF FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE - DEATH OF CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL - DISCOURSE BY MY FATHER- PROCEEDINGS ON THE OPENING OF THE SUPREME COURT - LINES TO BE INSCRIBED ON A CENOTAPH TO MARSHALL.
In the early part of the year 1834, the Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws were published. It was this work which put the seal to my father's reputation abroad as a jurist. The admirable method and style, the vast learning with which the principles of international jurisprudence are illustrated, the clearness and power of the legal discussions, the candor and acuteness with which conflicting opinions and doctrines are analyzed and compared, and the comprehensive generalizations by which they are systematized, justly entitle it to be considered as the most remarkable of my father's treatises. As it was the first systematic development of the subject in the English language, so in its department it still stands alone, and there seems to be a striking propriety in the fact, that by America, which is a federation of nations, should be given the first and ablest treatise on the conflict of national laws.
Extending as it does beyond the confines of the common law, and discussing principles of universal application and interest, it commanded a public not before reached by his previous works. “No work on national jurisprudence,” as was said in the London Law Review,“ merited or ever received greater praise from the jurists of Europe.” In the public journals at home and abroad, it was noticed with high encomiums. A writer in the English Jurist, speaking of it, says: “It is absolutely refreshing to sit down to the task of commenting on a work such as that before us, of which we may commence by saying, that if the subject matter is vast, the arrangement is philosophical and lucid, and the style is almost classical ;” and the Edinburgh Law Journal speaks of it as a “work altogether of so excellent a description, and betokening a mind so completely imbued with the purest principles of legal philosophy, that it ought to be in the hands of every person who aims at studying, in an intelligent way, the higher departments of professional knowledge.” It was reprinted at once in England, and but a short time elapsed before it was translated and published in France and Germany. Contrary to the usage of the English Bar, it was cited in their Courts, and spoken of in terms of high praise, and Sir N. C. Tindal, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, alluding to an important distinction drawn by counsel from this work, says of it, in delivering the opinion of the Court, that “it would be unjust to mention [it] without at the same time paying a tribute to the learning, acuteness, and accuracy of its author.”1
1 Some of these will be found collected in the Appendix.
In America, also, a like honor was paid to this work. The American Review of New York says: “ The various, deep, and rare learning of this work is not more remarkable than its luminous arrangement, the natural succession of its topics, and the fulness of its illustrations;” and in an argument before the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of the steamer Lexington, Mr. Webster pays the following compliment to it:
“ It is a great truth that England has never produced any eminent writer on national or general public law,- no elementary writer who has made the subject his own, who has breathed his own breath into it, and made it live. In English judicature Sir William Scott has, it is true, done much to enlighten the public mind on the subject of prize causes, and in our day Mackintosh has written a paper of some merit. But where is your English Grotius? Where is your English Barbeyrac ? Has England produced one? Not one. The English mind has never been turned to the discussion of general public law. We must go to the continent for the display of genius in this department of human knowledge. What have the Courts of Westminster Hall done to illustrate the principles of public law? With the exception of a tract by Mansfield, of considerable merit, more great principles of public law have been discussed and settled by this Court
· Huber v. Steiner, 2 Bing. New Cases, 211.