views of National authority and the broader views of the sovereignty of the individual States, which were undoubtedly held by most of the framers of the Constitution. To untrammeled intercourse between its parts, the American Union owes its preservation and its strength. Two factors have made such intercourse possible—the railroad, physically; the Supreme Court, legally.[1]
In order to emphasize the subject-matter of this work, I have intentionally (and despite some modern purists in typography) used capital letters, in connection with the words "Court", "Bench" (when synonymous with Court), "Judge", "Judiciary", "Bar", "State-Rights" and "Nation", both in the quoted as well as in the original matter.[2] For conciseness, in referring to members of the Court, I have intentionally used the word "Judge", instead of the. more technically accurate "Associate Justice."
As much new material has been gathered from unpublished MSS., I desire to acknowledge gratefully the courteous assistance which I have received from library officials, in connection with my use of the following MSS. collections: papers of George Washington, John Breckenridge, Harry Innes, John Marshall, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James A. Bayard, James Monroe, Caesar A. Rodney, Joseph H. Nicholson, William Wirt, Smith Thompson, James
- ↑ "If the system of internal improvements could go on for a few years with vigor . . . this Union would be bound by ties stronger than all the Constitutions that human wisdom could devise. A railroad from New England to Georgia would do more to harmonize the feelings of the whole country, than any amendments that can be offered or adopted to the Constitution. It is intercourse we want." So wrote Abbott Lawrence of Boston to Henry Clay. March 26, 1838. Works of Henry Clay (1855), IV.
- ↑ As the statesmen, letter writers and newspapers, from 1780 through the first quarter of the nineteenth century, used capital letters according to the whim of the moment, and with no apparent logical system, I have preferred to preserve a uniformity of typography rather than an exact reproduction of their whims.
