in 1811, decided against it. One Congress, in 1815, decided against a bank; another, in 1816, decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress, therefore, the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the States, the expressions of legislative, judicial, and executive opinions against the bank have been, probably, to those in its favor as four to one. There is nothing in precedent, therefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me.'

"I drop the quotations merely to remark, that all there ever was, in the way of precedent, up to the Dred Scott decision, on the points therein decided, had been against that decision.

"Again and again have I heard Judge Douglas denounce that bank decision, and applaud General Jackson for disregarding it. It would be interesting for him to look over his recent speech and see how exactly his fierce philippics against us for resisting the Supreme Court decisions, fall upon his own head. It will call to mind a long and fierce political war in this country, upon an issue which, in his own language, and, of course, in his own changeless estimation, was 'a distinct issue between the friends and the enemies of the Constitution,' and in which war he fought in the ranks of the enemies of the Constitution."

It is evident that the doctrine of national unity as laid down in the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and particularly in the opinion of Marshall, had either awakened or found a responsive chord within the keen, logical, lawyer's mind of the martyred President. How early this conviction obtained is shown in a lecture delivered at the Springfield Lyceum in 1837, where Lincoln said:

"If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

At Indianapolis, on his way to the Capital in 1861, referring to South Carolinians, he said:

"In their view, the Union as a family relation would seem to be no regular marriage, but rather a sort of 'free-love' arrangement, to be maintained only on 'passional attraction.""

At Trenton, New Jersey:

"I am exceedingly anxious that this Union, the Constitution and the liberties of the people shall be perpetuated in accordance with the original idea for which that struggle [the Revolution] was made."

At Philadelphia, at the "Old Independence Hall," among other things, in responding to an address of welcome:

"I can say in return, sir, that all the political sentiments I entertain have been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated in and were given to the world from this hall."

In his First Inaugural Address, he said:

"I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution and the Union will endure forever-it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself."

On August 22, 1862, in a letter to Horace Greeley, he said:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."

"What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Since, then, the national spirit shown in the foregoing quotations seems to have been founded so much more on the lawyer's view of the Constitution as a sacred compact that the descendants of the framers must fulfil, rather than on a mere emotional ideal, it may be worth while to examine the language of that great decision in M'Culloch v. Maryland, referred to before, wherein is found the logic and reasoning which, harmonizing with Lincoln's fidelity to obligations and the idealism of a mighty dreamer, may have played its part in the evolution of the Gettysburg masterpiece.

Beginning with page 403, Volume 4, Wheaton's Reports, the opinion reads as follows:

"The Convention which framed the Constitution was indeed elected by the State Legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from

their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States, with a request that it might be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its Legislature, for their assent and ratification.' This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the Convention, by Congress, and by the State Legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in Convention. It is true, they assembled in their several Statesand where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments.

"From these Conventions the Constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is 'ordained and established' in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained, 'in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity.' The assent of the States, in their sovereign capacity, is implied in calling a Convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the State governments. The Constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the State sovereignties. But when, in order to form a more perfect union,' it was deemed necessary to change this alliance into an effective government, possessing great and sovereign powers, and acting directly on the people, the necessity of referring it to the people, and of deriving its powers from them, was felt and acknowledged by all.

"The government of the Union, then (whatever may be the influence of this fact on the case), is, emphatically, and truly, a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit. But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted, is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, as long as our system shall exist."

"If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this-that the government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action. This would seem to result necessarily from its nature. It

is the government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for all."

Such was the opinion of the greatest nationalist Judge, laying down the law of what should be, to make a nation. Following up his steps and passing far beyond, came the greatest nationalist Executive, with a firm hand, holding together warring elements with power, wisdom, and patience, welding them strongly together, so that in a day when his eyes had long been closed, that which the great Judge had said should be, should be made to be. Over the silent forms of those fallen in the most terrible conflict of the long struggle for the perpetuation of the nation, the great Executive carried forward the reasoning of the great Judge-away from the bloodless language of law into words filled with the ichor of the love of mankind, into words immortal with unquestioning faith:

"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion— that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that a government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

THE MERIT OF A MIGHTY NAME

JUDGE W. G. EWING

THE people of America exalt themselves in the estimation

of all civilization by honoring the memory of Abraham Lincoln, for even now, scarce half a century distant from the Titanic struggle in which his splendor dawned, there is more of honest merit in his mighty name than ever bore the burdens of a crown, or through slaughter won a throne. Martin Luther waited nearly three centuries for the full recognition of his mighty achievement; and Shakespeare nearly a century longer for the universal acclaim of his splendid genius; and so with scores of others whose great names now belong to the rich heritage of the world. The rule through all history seems to be that it is "Time that sets all things even," and gives to every man his own, but in the instance of the great Lincoln, an awakened sense of justice superseded Time, and wrote his name high on the scroll of the immortals, even while the Nation in tears, followed him to the grave.

Few persons realize the brevity of Lincoln's public career, or at least his public life in any national sense. It is limited to seven brief years. There are several men in this audience to-night who have a larger inter-State acquaintance, a more extensive law practice and as much professional reputation as Lincoln had at the time of his debate with Douglas. That debate gave him a national reputation; his Cooper Union speech a year later, gave an international reputation; the year following came the presidency, and four years later, his assassination—thus in seven short years this marvellous man passed from the seclusion of a private citizen in a frontier town, to imperishable renown.

I have been much impressed with Lincoln's uniqueness in this he was the only occupant of the presidential office