But, in general, his book-buying was moderate during these formative years as a lawyer. While it is difficult to learn exactly what literature Marshall indulged in, besides novels and poetry, we know that he had "Dionysius Longinus on the Sublime"; the "Works of Nicholas Machiavel," in four volumes; "The History and Proceedings of the House of Lords from the Restoration," in six volumes; the "Life of the Earl of Clarendon, Lord High Chancellor of England"; the "Works of C.

Churchill--Poems and Sermons on Lord's Prayer"; and the "Letters of Lord Chesterfield to his son." A curious and entertaining book was a condensed cyclopaedia of law and business ent.i.tled "Lex Mercatoria Rediviva or The Merchant's Directory," on the t.i.tle-page of which is written in his early handwriting, "John Marshall Richmond."[587]

Marshall also had an English translation of "The Orations of aeschines and Demosthenes on the Crown."[588]

Marshall's wine bills were very moderate for those days, although as heavy as a young lawyer's resources could bear. On January 31, 1785, he bought fourteen shillings' worth of wine; and two and a half months later he paid twenty-six pounds and ten shillings "For Wine"; and the same day, "beer 4d," and the next day, "Gin 30/." On June 14 of the same year he enters, "punch 2/6," the next day, "punch 3/," and on the next day, "punch 6/."[589]

Early in this year Marshall's father, now in Kentucky and with opulent prospects before him, gave his favorite son eight hundred and twenty-four acres of the best land in Fauquier County.[590] So the rising Richmond attorney was in comfortable circ.u.mstances. He was becoming a man of substance and property; and this condition was reflected in his contributions to various Richmond social and religious enterprises.

He again contributed two pounds to "S^t. Taminy's" on May 9, 1785, and the same day paid six pounds, six shillings to "My club at Farmicolas."[591] On May 16 he paid thirty shillings for a "Ball" and nine shillings for "music"; and May 25 he enters, "Jockie Club 4-4"

(pounds and shillings). On July 5 he spent six shillings more at the "Club"; and the next month he again enters a contribution to "S^t. Johns [Episcopal Church] 1-16." He was an enthusiastic Mason, as we shall see; and on September 13, 1785, he enters, "p^d. Mason's Ball subscription for 10" (pounds). October 15 he gives eight pounds and four shillings for an "Episcopal Meeting"; and the next month (November 2, 1785) subscribes eighteen shillings "to a ball." And at the end of the year (December 23, 1785) he enters his "Subscription to Richmond a.s.sem.

3" (pounds).

Marshall's practice during his third year at the Richmond bar grew normally. The largest single fee received during this year (1785) was thirty-five pounds, while another fee of twenty pounds, and still another of fourteen pounds, mark the nearest approaches to this high-water mark. He had by now in Richmond two negroes (t.i.thable), two horses, and twelve head of cattle.[592]

He was elected City Recorder during this year; and it was to the efforts of Marshall, in promoting a lottery for the purpose, that the Masonic Hall was built in the ambitious town.[593]

The young lawyer had deepened the affection of his wife's family which he had won in Yorktown. Two years after his marriage the first husband of his wife's sister, Eliza, died; and, records the sorrowing young widow, "my Father ... dispatched ... my darling Brother Marshall to bring me." Again the bereaved Eliza tells of how she was "conducted by my good brother Marshall who lost no time" about this errand of comfort and sympathy.[594]

February 15, 1786, he enters an expense of twelve pounds "for moving my office" which he had painted in April at a cost of two pounds and seventeen shillings. This year he contributed to festivities and social events as usual. In addition to his subscriptions to b.a.l.l.s, a.s.semblies, and clubs, we find that on May 22, 1786, he paid nine shillings for a "Barbecue," and during the next month, "barbecue 7/" and still again, "barbecue 6/." On June 15, he "paid for Wine 7-7-6," and on the 26th, "corporation dinner 2-2-6." In September, 1786, his doctor's bills were very high. On the 22d of that month he paid nearly forty-five pounds for the services of three physicians.[595]

Among the books purchased was "Blair's sermons" which cost him one pound and four shillings.[596] In July he again "P^d. for S^t. Taminy's feast 2" (pounds). The expense of traveling is shown by several entries, such as, "Expenses up & down to & from Fauquier 4-12" (four pounds, twelve shillings); and "Expenses going to Gloster &c 5" (pounds); "expenses going to W^{ms}burg 7" (pounds); and again, "expenses going to and returning from Winchester 15" (pounds); and still again, "expenses going to W^{ms}burg 7" (pounds). On November 19, Marshall enters, "For quarter cask of wine 12-10" (twelve pounds and ten shillings). On this date we find, "To Barber 18" (shillings)--an entry which is as rare as the expenses to the theater are frequent.

He appears to have bought a house during this year (1786) and enters on October 7, 1786, "P^d. Mr. B. Lewis in part for his house 70 cash & 5 in an order in favor of James Taylor----75"; and November 19, 1786, "Paid Mr. B. Lewis in part for house 50" (pounds); and in December he again "P^d. Mr. Lewis in part for house 27-4" (twenty-seven pounds, four shillings); and (November 19) "P^d. Mr. Lewis 16" (pounds); and on the 28th, "Paid Mr. Lewis in full 26-17-1 1/4."

In 1786, the Legislature elected Edmund Randolph Governor; and, on November 10, 1786, Randolph advertised that "The General a.s.sembly having appointed me to an office incompatible with the further pursuit of my profession, I beg leave to inform my clients that John Marshall Esq.

will succeed to my business in General &c."[597]

At the end of this year, for the first time, Marshall adds up his receipts and expenditures, as follows: "Received in the Year 1786 according to the foregoing accounts 508-4-10." And on the opposite page he enters[598]--

To my expenses 432______________________ 1 8 --------------------------- 433 -- 8

In 1787 Marshall kept his accounts in better fashion. He employed a housekeeper in April, Mrs. Marshall being unable to attend to domestic duties; and from February, 1787, until May of the following year he enters during each month, "Betsy Mumkins 16/." The usual expenditures were made during this year, and while Marshall neglects to summarize his income and outlay, his practice was still growing, although slowly. On December 3, 1787, his second child was born.[599]

In January of 1787 occurred the devastating Richmond fire which destroyed much of the little city;[600] and on February 7, Marshall enters among his expenses, "To my subscription to the sufferers by fire 21" (pounds).

Marshall's name first appears in the reports of the cases decided by the Virginia Court of Appeals in 1786. In May of that year the court handed down its opinion in Hite _et al. vs._ Fairfax _et al._[601] It involved not only the lands directly in controversy, but also the validity of the entire Fairfax t.i.tle and indirectly that of a great deal of other land in Virginia. Baker, who appears to have been the princ.i.p.al attorney for the Fairfax claimants, declared that one of the contentions of the appellants "would destroy every t.i.tle in the Commonwealth." The case was argued for the State by Edmund Randolph, Attorney-General, and by John Taylor (probably of Caroline). Marshall, supporting Baker, acted as attorney for "such of the tenants as were citizens of Virginia." The argument consumed three days, May 3 to 5 inclusive.[602]

Marshall made an elaborate argument, and since it is the first of his recorded utterances, it is important as showing his quality of mind and legal methods at that early period of his career. Marshall was a little more than thirty years old and had been practicing law in Richmond for about three years.

The most striking features of his argument are his vision and foresight.

It is plain that he was acutely conscious, too, that it was more important to the settlers who derived their holdings from Lord Fairfax to have the long-disputed t.i.tle settled than it was to win as to the particular lands directly in controversy. Indeed, upon a close study of the complicated records in the case, it would seem that Joist Hite's claim could not, by any possibility, have been defeated. For, although the lands claimed by him, and others after him, clearly were within the proprietary of Lord Fairfax, yet they had been granted to Hite by the King in Council, and confirmed by the Crown; Lord Fairfax had agreed with the Crown to confirm them on his part; he or his agents had promised Hite that, if the latter would remain on the land with his settlers, Fairfax would execute the proper conveyances to him, and Fairfax also made other guarantees to Hite.

But it was just as clear that, outside of the lands immediately in controversy, Lord Fairfax's t.i.tle, from a strictly legal point of view, was beyond dispute except as to the effect of the sequestration laws.[603] It was a.s.sailed, however, through suggestion at least, both by Attorney-General Randolph and by Mr. Taylor. There was, at this time, a strong popular movement on foot in Virginia to devise some means for destroying the whole Fairfax t.i.tle to the Northern Neck. Indeed, the reckless royal bounty from which this enormous estate sprang had been resented bitterly by the Virginia settlers from the very beginning;[604]

the people never admitted the justice and morality of the Fairfax grant.

Also, at this particular period, there was an epidemic of debt repudiation, evasion of contracts and other obligations, and a.s.sailing of t.i.tles.[605]

So, while Baker, the senior Fairfax lawyer, referred but briefly to the validity of the Fairfax t.i.tle and devoted practically the whole of his argument to the lands involved in the case then before the court, Marshall, on the other hand, made the central question of the validity of the whole Fairfax t.i.tle the dominant note of his argument. Thus he showed, in his first reported legal address, his most striking characteristic of going directly to the heart of any subject.

Briefly reported as is his argument in Hite vs. Fairfax, the qualities of far-sightedness and simple reasoning, are almost as plain as in the work of his riper years:--

"From a bare perusal of the papers in the cause," said Marshall, "I should never have apprehended that it would be necessary to defend the t.i.tle of Lord _Fairfax_ to the Northern Neck. The long and quiet possession of himself and his predecessors; the acquiescence of the country; the several grants of the crown, together with the various acts of a.s.sembly recognizing, and in the most explicit terms admitting his right, seemed to have fixed it on a foundation, not only not to be shaken, but even not to be attempted to be shaken.

"I had conceived that it was not more certain, that there was such a tract of country as the Northern Neck, than that Lord _Fairfax_ was the proprietor of it. And if his t.i.tle be really unimpeachable, to what purpose are his predecessors criminated, and the patents they obtained attacked? What object is to be effected by it? Not, surely, the destruction of the grant; for gentlemen cannot suppose, that a grant made by the crown to the ancestor for services rendered, or even for affection, can be invalidated in the hands of the heir because those services and affection are forgotten; or because the thing granted has, from causes which must have been foreseen, become more valuable than when it was given. And if it could not be invalidated in the hands of the heir, much less can it be in the hands of a purchaser.

"Lord _Fairfax_ either was, or was not, ent.i.tled to the territory; if he was, then it matters not whether the gentlemen themselves, or any others, would or would not have made the grant, or may now think proper to denounce it as a wise, or impolitic, measure; for still the t.i.tle must prevail; if he was not ent.i.tled, then why was the present bill filed; or what can the court decree upon it? For if he had no t.i.tle, he could convey none, and the court would never have directed him to make the attempt.

"In short, if the t.i.tle was not in him, it must have been in the crown; and, from that quarter, relief must have been sought. The very filing of the bill, therefore, was an admission of the t.i.tle, and the appellants, by prosecuting it, still continue to admit it....

"It [the boundary] is, however, no longer a question; for it has been decided, and decided by that tribunal which has the power of determining it. That decision did not create or extend Lord _Fairfax's_ right, but determined what the right originally was. The bounds of many patents are doubtful; the extent of many t.i.tles uncertain; but when a decision is once made on them, it removes the doubt, and ascertains what the original boundaries were. If this be a principle universally acknowledged, what can destroy its application to the case before the court?"

The remainder of Marshall's argument concerns the particular dispute between the parties. This, of course, is technical; but two paragraphs may be quoted ill.u.s.trating what, even in the day of Henry and Campbell, Wickham and Randolph, men called "Marshall's eloquence."

"They dilate," exclaimed Marshall, "upon their hardships as first settlers; their merit in promoting the population of the country; and their claims as purchasers without notice. Let each of these be examined.

"Those who explore and settle new countries are generally bold, hardy, and adventurous men, whose minds, as well as bodies, are fitted to encounter danger and fatigue; their object is the acquisition of property, and they generally succeed.

"None will say that the complainants have failed; and, if their hardships and danger have any weight in the cause, the defendants shared in them, and have equal claim to countenance; for they, too, with humbler views and less extensive prospects, 'have explored, bled for and settled a, 'till then, uncultivated desert.'"[606]

Hite won in this particular case; but, thanks to Marshall's argument, the court's decision did not attack the general Fairfax t.i.tle. So it was that Marshall's earliest effort at the bar, in a case of any magnitude, was in defense of the t.i.tle to that estate of which, a few years later, he was to become a princ.i.p.al owner.[607] Indeed, both he and his father were interested even then; for their lands in Fauquier County were derived from or through Fairfax.

Of Marshall's other arguments at this period, no record exists. We know, however, from his Account Book, that his business increased steadily; and, from tradition, that he was coming to be considered the ablest of the younger members of the distinguished Richmond bar. For his services in this, his first notable case, Marshall received one hundred and nine pounds, four shillings, paid by fifty-seven clients. Among those employing the young attorney was George Washington. In the account of fees paid him in Hite vs. Fairfax, he enters: "Gen^l G. Washington 1-4"

(pounds and shillings) and "A. Washington 1-4." Marshall's record of this transaction is headed: "List of fees rec'd from Ten^{ts} Fairfax Ad^s. .h.i.te," referring to the t.i.tle of the case in the lower court.

An evidence of his growing prosperity is the purchase from Aquella and Lucy Dayson of two hundred and sixty acres of land in Fauquier County, for "one hundred and sixty pounds current money of Virginia."[608] This purchase, added to the land already given him by his father,[609] made John Marshall, at thirty-one years of age, the owner of nearly one thousand acres of land in Fauquier.

Marshall's Account Book shows his generosity toward his brothers and sisters, who remained in Virginia when Thomas Marshall went to Kentucky to establish himself. There are frequent entries of money advanced to his brothers, particularly James M., as, "Given my brother James 3-9"; or, "To my brother James 36-18," etc. Marshall's sister Lucy lived in his house until her marriage to the wealthy John Ambler.[610] The young lawyer was particularly attentive to the wants of his sister Lucy and saw to it that she had all the advantages of the Virginia Capital. In his Account Book we find many entries of expenses in her behalf; as, for example, "for Lucy 5-8-3"; and again, a few days later, "given Eliza[611] for Lucy" four pounds, sixteen shillings; and still later, "for Lucy 10-6" (ten pounds, six shillings); and, "P^d. for Lucy entering into dancing school 2-2" (two pounds, two shillings).

Throughout Marshall's Account Book the entries that most frequently occur are for some expense for his wife. There is hardly a page without the entry, "given Polly" so much, or "for Polly" so much, and the entries are for liberal amounts. For instance, on January 15, 1785, he enters, "Sundries for Polly 8-6-8 1/2"; on the 18th, "Given Polly 6/"; on the 25th, "for Polly 11/ 7 1/2"; and on the 29th, "Given Polly for a hat 36/." And later, "Given Polly 56/" and "Given Polly 2-16" (pounds and shillings); and "for Polly 3." "For Polly 5-7-5"; "Sundries for Polly, 12-6" and "Left with Polly 10-4" (pounds and shillings). "Given Polly 1-8"; "Gloves for Polly 7/6." Such entries are very numerous.

The young wife, who had become an invalid soon after her marriage, received from her husband a devotion and care which realized poetic idealism. "His exemplary tenderness to our unfortunate sister is without parallel," testifies Mrs. Carrington. "With a delicacy of frame and feeling that baffles all description, she became, early after her marriage, a prey to an extreme nervous affliction which more or less has embittered her comfort thro' life; but this only served to increase his care and tenderness.... He is always and under every circ.u.mstance an enthusiast in love."[612]

Marshall's affection for his wife grew with the years and was nourished by her increasing infirmities. It is the most marked characteristic of his entire private life and is the one thing which differentiates him sharply from most of the eminent men of that heroic but, socially, free-and-easy period. Indeed, it is in John Marshall's worship of his delicate and nerve-racked wife that we find the beginnings of that exaltation of womankind, which his life, as it unrolls, will disclose.

[Ill.u.s.tration: PAGE OF MARSHALL'S ACCOUNT BOOK, MAY, 1787 (_Facsimile_)]

John Marshall's respect, admiration, reverence, for woman became so notable that it was remarked by all who knew him, and remains to this day a living tradition in Richmond. It resembled the sentiment of the age of chivalry. While the touching incidents, glowing testimonials, and most of the letters that reveal this feature of Marshall's character occur more vividly after he ascended the bench,[613] the heart of the man cannot be understood as we go along without noting the circ.u.mstance in his earlier married life.

FOOTNOTES:

[482] Mrs. Carrington to her sister Nancy, 1810; _Atlantic Monthly_, lx.x.xiv, 546; and same to same, March, 1809; MS. Thomas Marshall was now Colonel of the Virginia State Regiment of Artillery and continued as such until February 26, 1781, when his men were discharged and he became "a reduced officer." (Memorial of Thomas Marshall, _supra._ See Appendix IV.) This valuable historical doc.u.ment is the only accurate account of Thomas Marshall's military services. It disproves the statement frequently made that he was captured when under Lincoln at Charleston, South Carolina, May 12, 1780. Not only was he commanding the State Artillery in Virginia at that time, but on March 28 he executed a deed in Fauquier County, Virginia, and in June he was a.s.sisting the Ambler family in removing to Richmond. (See _infra._) If a Thomas Marshall was captured at Charleston, it must have been one of the many others of that name. There was a South Carolina officer named Thomas Marshall and it is probably he to whom Heitman refers. Heitman (ed. 1914), 381. For account of the surrender of Charleston, see McCrady, iii, 507-09.

[483] "Certain it is that another Revolutionary War can never happen to affect and ruin a family so completely as ours has been!" It "involved our immediate family in poverty and perplexity of every kind." (Mrs.

Carrington to her sister Nancy; _Atlantic Monthly_, lx.x.xiv, 545-47.)

[484] _Ib._

[485] Dog Latin and crude pun for "bell in day."

[486] Jefferson to Page and to Fleming, from Dec. 25, 1762, to March 20, 1764; _Works_: Ford, i, 434-52. In these delightful letters Jefferson tells of his infatuation, sometimes writing "Adnileb" in Greek.