treason. My dear friend, look at the Constitution of
the United States, and see if any such construction can
possibly be allowed. I heard him with cool, deliberate
attention; and I thought that he could be answered
with tritimphant force. He attacked Chief Justice
Marshall with insidious warmth. Among other things
he said : ^ I have learned that judicial opinions on this
subject are like changeable silks, which vary their colors
as they are held up in political sunshine/ " ^
Though the Giles bill was defeated, the relation of Marshall to the Burr trial long continued to rankle in the Republican mind; and while the Federalist view of Marshall's conduct has been largely accepted by historians, it must be admitted that the belief held by Jefferson and his followers that Marshall had been influenced by personal and partisan feeling in some of his rulings had considerable justification.^ It is a re- markable tribute to his integrity, however, that criti- cism of this nature was never leveled against Marshall in any other case, either during his lifetime or in the years immediately succeeding his death.'
1 8iar^, 1, 157» letter of Feb. 18, 1808.
'See John Marshall and th$ ConMuHon (1920), by Edward S. Corwin; Prof. Andrew C. McLaughlin in Amer, Bar Asa, Joum. (1921), VII, StSS, said: "Mar- shall's law may have been good ; but a critical examination may lead the trained lawyer to agree with Corwin that the case is a blemish on Marshall's career." As to Marshall's conduct in the Burr Case, see Harlan, J., in 8'parf v. United Staiee, 166 U. S. 51, 68.
- Reverdy Johnson, a strong Democrat, in a speech in the Senate, May 10, 12,
1848 (SOth Cong,, 1st Sees.), spoke of Marshall '* whose honesty, except in the veiy excess of political madness, was never questioned but once, and in that instance only by Mr. Jefferson and that on account of the burning desire he fdt to punish Aaroo Burr."
