cute and penetrating mind; . . . attentive,
patient, laborious; grave on the bench, social in the intercourse of
life; simple in his tastes, and inexorably just."--Thomas Hart Benton,
in "Thirty Years' View."

POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

(_From Case of Cohen vs. State of Virginia, given in Magruder's Life
of Marshall._[5])

It is authorized to decide all cases of every description arising
under the Constitution or laws of the United States. From this general
grant of jurisdiction no exception is made of those cases in which a
State may be a party. When we consider the situation of the government
of the Union and of a State in relation to each other, the nature of
our Constitution, the subordination of the State governments to that
Constitution, the great purpose for which jurisdiction over all cases
arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States is
confided to the judicial department, are we at liberty to insert in
this general grant an exception of those cases in which a State may be
a party? Will the spirit of the Constitution justify this attempt to
control its words? We think it will not. We think a case arising under
the Constitution or laws, of the United States is cognizable in the
courts of the Union, whoever may be the parties to that case. The laws
must be executed by individuals acting within the several States. If
these individuals may be exposed to penalties, and if the courts of
the Union cannot correct the judgments by which these penalties may
be enforced, the course of government may be at any time arrested by
the will of one of its members. Each member will possess a _veto_ on
the will of the whole.

That the United States form, for many and most important purposes, a
single nation has not yet been denied. These States are constituent
parts of the United States. They are members of one great empire, for
some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate. In a
government so constituted is it unreasonable that the judicial power
should be competent to give efficacy to the constitutional laws of the
legislature? That department can decide on the validity of the
Constitution or law of a State, if it be repugnant to the Constitution
or to a law of the United States. Is it unreasonable that it should
also be empowered to decide on the judgment of a State tribunal
enforcing such unconstitutional law? Is it so very unreasonable as to
furnish a justification for co