hey foreshadow views of a more enduring
value. For example, he met a favorite contention of the opposition by
saying that arguments based on the assumption that necessary powers
would be abused were arguments against government in general and "a
recommendation of anarchy." To Henry's despairing cry that the proposed
system lacked checks, he replied: "What has become of his enthusiastic
eulogium of the American spirit? We should find a check and control,
when oppressed, from that source. In this country there is no exclusive
personal stock of interest. The interest of the community is blended and
inseparably connected with that of the individual.... When we consult
the common good, we consult our own." And when Henry argued that a
vigorous union was unnecessary because "we are separated by the sea
from the powers of Europe," Marshall replied: "Sir, the sea makes them
neighbors of us."

It is worthy of note that Marshall gave his greatest attention to
the judiciary article as it appeared in the proposed Constitution. He
pointed out that the principle of judicial independence was here better
safeguarded than in the Constitution of Virginia. He stated in one
breath the principle of judicial review and the doctrine of enumerated
powers. If, said he, Congress "make a law not warranted by any of
the powers enumerated, it would be considered by the judges as an
infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard; they would
not consider such a law as coming within their jurisdiction. They would
declare it void." * On the other hand, Marshall scoffed at the idea that
the citizen of a State might bring an original action against another
State in the Supreme Court. His dissections of Mason's and Henry's
arguments frequently exhibit controversial skill of a high order. From
Henry, indeed, Marshall drew a notable tribute to his talent, which was
at the same time proof of his ability to keep friends with his enemies.

* J. Elliot, "Debates" (Edition of 1836), vol. III, p. 503. As to
Bills of Rights, however, Marshall expressed the opinion that they were
meant to be "merely recommendatory. Were it otherwise, ...many laws
which are found convenient would be unconstitutional." Op. cit.,
vol. III, p. 509.

On the day the great Judiciary Act became law, Marshall attained
his thirty-fourth year. His stride toward professional and political
prominence was now rapid. At the same time his private interests were
becoming more clos