opinion which was of greatest import at the time when it was rendered becomes subordinate to other considerations. This is particularly true as to the decision in Marbury v. Madison. To the lawyers of today, the significance of Marshall's opinion lies in its establishment of the power of the Court to adjudicate the validity of an Act of Congress—the fundamental decision in the American system of constitutional law. To the public of 1803, on the other hand, the case represented the determination of Marshall and his Associates to interfere with the authority of the Executive, and it derived its chief importance then from that aspect.
Contemporary writings make it very clear that the Republicans attacked the decision, not so much because it sustained the power of the Court to determine the validity of Congressional legislation, as because it enounced the doctrine that the Court might issue mandamus to a Cabinet official who was acting by direction of the President. In other words, Jeflferson's antagonism to Marshall and the Court at that time was due more to his resentment at the alleged invasion of his Executive prerogative than to any so-called "judicial usurpation" of the field of Congressional authority. This phase of the Marbury Case was brought out vividly in a debate which took place in Congress, a few days before the opening of the February, 1803, Term, over a motion made by Federalist supporters of Marbury that the Secretary of the Senate furnish from its Executive Records a transcript of the dates of the nominations of justices of the peace by President Adams and of the actions of the Senate thereon. This evidence was of course desired in support of the petition for issue of the writ of mandamus which was to be argued at the coming Term. Opposing this motion, Wright of Maryland said
