Author Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1900 Excerpt:...penalty or forfeiture of the vessel. The question arose whether the attempted control over these waters by the state was consistent with the constitutional power of congress to regulate commerce. Every tribunal in the state had upheld the law. Suit had been brought by Ogden, assignee, to restrain Gibbons from the navigation of certain waters. It had been decided in favor of Ogden, and was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Webster had not been employed in the court below. He was now engaged to resist the validity of the state laws. The difficulty lay in the apparent conflict of jurisdiction between the state and the national government over waters situate wholly within the territorial limits of the state. Did the state have the right to control these waters? Was such control in conflict with the right of congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states? The argument of Mr. Webster was, that the commerce of the Union is a unit, therefore, its regulation must rest exclusively in congress, and not concurrently in congress and the states; hence, a state law granting a monopoly to navigate certain waters in the state is a law to regulate commerce, and, therefore, unconstitutional and void. William Wirt, the distinguished counsel opposed to him, relied upon the coasting license, and made an able and learned plea, but Webster spoke with great force for more than five hours and carried the court with him. "Indeed," says one, "the lucid and luminous argument of the young lawyer astonished the court, and made old Judge Marshall lay down his pen, drop back in his chair, turn up his coat-cuffs, and stare at the speaker in amazement at his powers." Among the most famous of the causes in which Webste...