Page:The Supreme Court in United States History vol 1.djvu/181

Rh are greatly respected, but I still think that General Marshall ought to be preferred. Of the three envoys, the conduct of Marshall alone has been entirely satis- factory and ought to be marked by the most decided approbation of the public. He has raised the American people in their own esteem. And if the influence of Truth and Justice, Reason and Argument is not lost in Europe, he has raised the consideration of the United States in that quarter of the world. . . • He is older at the Bar than Mr. Washington, and I know by experi- ence that seniority at the Bar is nearly as much regarded as in the army." Accordingly, the appointment was tendered to Marshall but was declined by him, and Pickering in forwarding the letter of refusal to the President wrote: **I transmit the letter, as well that his own grateful sense of the oflFer might be seen, as for the strong expression of the opinion of so good a judge on the fitness of conferring the oflSce on Mr. Washington whose talents and character are so perfectly well known to him.'* Thereupon, President Adams directed that the vacancy be filled by the appointment of Bushrod Washington, and the commission was sent to him, October 6, 1798 (a recommission being made on Decem- ber 20, after the Senate convened).^ At each of the two Terms in 1799 but four cases were decided, no one of which was of marked interest, though New York v. Connecticut y 4 Dallas, 1, may be noted as the first instance of a suit by one State against another.*

» Pickering Papers MSS, XXXVII. 888, letter of Timothy Pickering to John Adams, Oct. 5, 1798, letter of Pickering to B. Washington, Oct. 6, 1798, stating that '*the President of the United States being desirous of availing the public of your services as one of the Associate Justices."


 * See ConnecHeut-New York Boundary Line^ by Simeon E. Baldwin, New Haven Colony Eiel, 8oe. Proc, (1882), HE. See resolution introduced into Congress by Livingston of New York, Feb. 15, 1798, "that provision ought to be made by law allowing the trial of all cases, in which one or more States may be interested in such suit or suits. 5th Cong., IH Sess., 1035, 1267. The method of beginning suit against a State had been established as early as 1796 in Qtayeon v. Virginia, 8