Section 7, Constitution of Virginia, 1830.)

Debates, Va. Conv. 615-17.

See vol. III, chap. II, of this work.

Debates, Va. Conv. 619.

Ib. 618-19.

Ib. 726.

See vol. III, chap. II, of this work.

Debates, Va. Conv. 731.

Debates, Va. Conv. 726-27.

Debates, Va. Conv. 727-29.

Debates, Va. Conv. 729-30.

See especially the speech of Benjamin Watkins Leigh, ib. 733-37.

See ib. for ayes and noes, 740, 741, 742, 744, 748.

Ib. 764.

Debates, Va. Conv. 767.

Ib. 880.

Compare Marshall's report (ib. 33) with Article V of the constitution (ib. 901-02; and see supra, 491, note 2.)

Contrast Marshall's resolutions (Debates, Va. Conv. 39-40), which expressed the conservative stand, with those of William H. Fitzhugh of Fairfax County (ib. 41-42), of Samuel Clayton of Campbell County (ib. 42), of Charles S. Morgan of Monongalia (ib. 43-44), and of Alexander Campbell of Brooke County (ib. 45-46), which state the views of the radicals.

See, for instance, the speech of John R. Cooke of Frederick County for the radicals (Debates, Va. Conv. 54-65), of Abel P. Upshur of Northampton for the conservatives (ib. 65-79), of Philip Doddridge of Brooke County for the radicals (ib. 79-89), of Philip P. Barbour of Orange County for the conservatives (ib. 90-98), and especially the speeches of Benjamin Watkins Leigh for the conservatives (ib. 151-74, 544-48). Indeed, the student cannot well afford to omit any one of the addresses in this remarkable contest.

It is at this point that we see the reason for Jefferson's alarm thirteen years before the convention was called. (See supra, 469.)

Debates, Va. Conv. 497-500.

Debates, Va. Conv. 561-62.

Constitution of Virginia, 1830, Article III, Sections 1 and 2.

Ib. Article III, Section 14.

See supra, 469.

See next chapter.

March 12, 1830.

4 Peters, 432.

4 Peters, 432.

Ib. 433.

Ib. 434.

4 Peters, 434-36.

Ib. 437.

Ib. 420.

Ib. 438.

See 552-58.

4 Peters, 438-44.

Ib. 445-50.

Ib. 458.

4 Peters, 464.

Story to Ticknor, Jan. 22, 1831, Story, II, 49. Nevertheless Story did not despair. "It is now whispered, that the demonstrations of public opinion are so strong, that the majority [of the Judiciary Committee] will conclude not to present their report." (Ib.)

Marshall to Story, Oct. 15, 1830, Proceedings, Mass. Hist. Soc. 2d Series, XIV, 342.

See infra, 584.

Debates, 21st Cong. 2d Sess. 532.

Ib. 535.

Ib. 534.

Ib. 659.

Ib. 665.

Debates, 21st Cong. 2d Sess. 620-21.

Ib. 731, 748; and see vol. I, 454-55, of this work.

Debates, 21st Cong. 2d Sess. 739.

Debates, 21st Cong. 2d Sess. 542.

This was the last formal attempt, but one, made in Congress during Marshall's lifetime, to impair the efficiency of National courts. The final attack was made by Joseph Lecompte, a Representative from Kentucky, who on January 27, 1832, offered a resolution instructing the Judiciary Committee to "inquire into the expediency of amending the constitution ... so that the judges of the Supreme Court, and of the inferior courts, shall hold their offices for a limited term of years." On February 24, the House, by a vote of 141 to 27, refused to consider Lecompte's resolution, ignoring his plea to be allowed to explain it. (Debates, 22d Cong. 1st Sess. 1856-57.) So summary and brusque--almost contemptuous--was the rejection of Lecompte's proposal, as almost to suggest that personal feeling was an element in the action taken by the House.