|
THE MARSHALL COURT AND CULTURAL CHANGE, 1815-1835
less temperate presence of Luther Martin, who by the time the 1815 Term
of the Marshall Court opened was renowned not only for his "iron mem-
ory" and his "fullness of legal knowledge""9 but also for "often ap-
pear[ing] in Court evidently intoxicated."120 Martin was sixty-seven by
1815, and four years later, in August 1819, he suffered a severe stroke
and never argued a case again. His career thus belongs largely to an
earlier time, but his remarkable disposition and his memorable argument
in McCulloch v. Maryland, made four months before his stroke, justify
a brief sketch of him here.
Martin was a contemporary of John Marshall; he was born in 1748,
seven years before Marshall, and died in 1826, nine years before the
Chief Justice. By 1772, six years after his graduation from Princcton,
Martin had established a law practice in Accomock and Northampton
counties on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, and had also become licensed
to practice in the adjoining state of Maryland. Martin had taught school
while studying law and entered law practice in debt, but by 1774 he was
earning "nearly or quite equal to a thousand pounds a year, with every
prospect of increase."121 During his early years on the Eastern Shore
Martin became acquainted with Samuel Chase; the resulting friendship
endured until Chase's death in 1810. Chase and Martin were both in-
volved in Revolutionary politics, and after independence Chase used his
influence to help Martin become attorney general of Maryland in 1778,
a position in which he remained until 1805. On becoming attorney gen-
eral, Martin moved to Baltimore, which was to become his home for the
rest of his professional life,122 and continued his private law practice.
During his years as attorney general Martin had been a delegate to the
1787 Constitutional Convention, where he had been a thorn in the side
of the Madisonian majority that eventually prevailed. He also developed
a reputation as an "excessively voluble orator," based principally on a
speech he delivered on June 27 and 28.l2-' Martin's role at the Convention
was that of champion of the small states, advocate of equal representation
for all states in the Senate, and opponent of extensive powers in the federal
government. He was subsequently to modify all of these positions, be-
119 Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in
S. Tyler, Memoir of Roger Brookc Ta-
ney (1872), 67.
120 I hid., 65.
121 L. Martin, Modern Gratitude
(1801), 150. This curious pamphlet,
engendered by an acrimonious dispute
Martin had with his son-in-law, Richard
Reynal Keene, who eloped with Eleo-
nora, one of Martin's daughters, in
1802, when Eleonora was fifteen,
serves as a kind of autobiography, al-
though it was not primarily written for
that purpose. For more detail on Mar-
tin's domestic life, see P. Clarkson and
R. S. Jett, Luther Martin of Maryland
(1970), 195-97- 291-92.
122 On Chase's role in Martin's ca-
reer see Bcvcridge, John Marshall, III,
186; Clarkson and Jctt, Luther Martin.
41-42.
l2' J. Beck. The Constitution of the
United States (1924), 90; see M. Far-
rand, Records of the Federal Conven-
tion (4 vols., 1937), IV. 20-28.
230
Chapter IV: Prominent Lawyers Before the Marshall Court
coming a Federalist in the early nineteenth century and remaining so until
his death.124
The year he resigned as attorney general Martin also participated in
the most famous case of his career, the impeachment of his old friend,
Samuel Chase, who his opponents claimed had engaged in excessively
biased conduct in trying some sedition cases. This is not the place to
review the Chase trial, which has been widely commented upon else-
where,125 but Martin's performance at that proceeding was among his
finest. Henry Adams's characterization of Martin's performance, while
regularly quoted, is still apt. Adams called Martin then "the most for-
midable of American advocates . . . rollicking, witty, audacious . . .
drunken, generous, slovenly, grand," and felt that "nothing can be finer
in its way than Martin's [argument]," with "its rugged and sustained
force; its strong humor, audacity, and dexterity; its even flow and simple
choice of language; free from rhetoric and affections; its close and com-
pulsive grasp of the law; [and] its good natured contempt for the obstacles
put in its way."126 One passage from Martin's argument captures its
flavor. He said, in response to charges that Chase had "prejudged" cases,
To prejudge any case, I consider as meaning, that a person with-
out competent knowledge of facts hath formed an opinion injurious to
the merits of the case. If the term, prejudication, is used in this sense,
there is no pretence that my honorable client gave a prejudicated opin-
ion in the case of Fries; for it is not alleged that the opinion given was
not strictly legal and correct . . .
But if by a prejudicated opinion, is meant, that a judge, from his
great legal knowledge, and familiar acquaintance with the law, as rela-
tive to the doctrine of treason . . . had formed a clear decided opinion
that the facts stated in the indictment against Fries, if proved, as laid,
amounted to treason, I will readily allow that I have no doubt my
honorable client had thus prejudicated the law. . . . But if this manner
of prejudicating the law, is thought improper, nay, criminal in a judge,
a prejudication which is nothing more than an eminent and correct
knowledge of the law, why I pray are gentlemen of great talents and
high legal attainments sought in your appointments of judges?127
124 See Clarkson and Jett, Luther
Martin, 72-134; C. Warren, The Mak-
ing of the Constitution (1929), 245-47.
125 C. Evans, Report of the Trial of
the Honorable Samuel Chase (1805). is
a contemporary account of the Chase
trial. Among the secondary treatments
are H. Adams, History of the United
States of America during the Adminis-
tration of Jefferson and Madison (9
vols., 1891), II, 147-57; Beveridge,
John Marshall, III, 157-222; C. War-
ren, The Supreme Court in United
States History (3 vols., 1922); I,
269-99; Haskins and Johnson, Foun-
dations of Power, 215-45.
12<> H. Adams. John Randolph
(1882), 141, 147.
127 Quoted in Evans, Report of
Chase Trial, 193-94. Italics in original.
|
