BLYTH (1800) Before the expiration of his last presidential term, he gave us his paternal advice, which, if duly attended to, will forever preserve to us the inheritance of freedom. Let us pursue this advice, and never depart from it; it is addressed to us all; it is addressed to every American. "Let the union of the States" said our deceased Washington, "and the reciprocity of interests be the groundwork of your political existence; let the illiberal spirit of party be banished forever from among you; let just and amicable feelings, devoid of all partialities and antipathies, regulate your conduct with all nations; guard against the interference of foreign nations in your internal concerns." In this advice, our Washington still lives; in this bequest of the father of our country, to the whole American people, our Washington will forever live, in the hearts and minds of all patriots over the whole globe; and his venerable name will descend with unfading glory, down the perpetual succession of time, through ages of ages. JOSEPH BLYTH, in Eulogies and Orations on Washington. 211. MASON (1800) Having lavished all her honours, his country had nothing more to bestow upon him except her blessing. But he had more to bestow upon his country. His views and his advice, the condensed wisdom of all his reflection, observation and experience, he delivers to his compatriots in a manual worthy of them to study, and of him to compose. JOHN M. MASON, in Eulogies and Orations on Washington. 239. MINOT (1800) The dangers of the Commonwealth having subsided at the close of his second administration, he felt himself justified, after dedicating forty-five years of his valuable life to her service, in withdrawing to receive with resignation the great change of nature, which his age and his toils demonstrated to be near. When he declined your future suffrages, he left you a legacy. What! like Cæsar's to the Romans, money for your sports? Like Attalus's, a kingdom for your tyranny? No; he left you not such baubles, nor for such purposes. He left you the records of wisdom for your government; a mirror for the faithful representation to your own view, of yourselves, your weaknesses, your advantages, your dangers: a magnet which points to the secret mines and windings of party spirit, faction, foreign influence: a pillar to the unity of your republic: a band to inclose, conciliate and strengthen the whole of your wonderful and almost boundless communities. Read, preserve the sacred deposit; and lest posterity should forget the truth of its maxims, engrave them on his tomb, that they may read them when they weep before it. GEORGE R. MINOT, in Eulogies and Orations on Washington. 24. CRITICAL COMMENT SPARKS (1837) There is not an idea'or sentiment in the Farewell Address, which may not be found, more or less extended, in different parts of Washington's writings; nor, after such a perusal, can any one doubt his ability to compose such a paper. As a mere literary performance, though excellent, it is neither extraordinary, nor in any degree superior to many others known to be written by each of the parties. It would add little to the great reputation of Washington, or of Hamilton, if the one or the other could be proved to be its sole and unaided author. It derives its value, and is destined to immortality, and chiefly from the circumstance of its containing wise, pure, and noble sentiments, sanctioned by the name of Washington at the moment when he was retiring from a long public career, in which he had been devoted to the service of his country with a disinterestedness, self-sacrifice, perseverance, and success, commanding the admiration and applause of mankind. JARED SPARKS, George Washington. XII. 396. BINNEY (1859) Washington was undoubtedly the original designer of the Farewell Address; and not merely by general or indefinite in timation, but by the suggestion of perfectly definite subjects, of an end or object, and of a general outline, the same which the paper now exhibits. .. By derivation from himself, the Farewell Address speaks the very mind of Washington. The fundamental thoughts and principles were his; but he was not the composer or writer of the paper. Hamilton was, in the prevalent literary sense, the composer and writer of the paper. . . . The main trunk was Washington's; the branches were stimulated by Hamilton; and the foliage, which was not exuberant was altogether his. . . . ... We might, though not with full and exact propriety, allot the soul to Washington, and the spirit to Hamilton. The elementary body is Washington's, also; but Hamilton has developed and fashioned it, and he has symmetrically formed and arranged the members to give combined and appropriate action to the whole. HORACE BINNEY, Inquiry into the Formation of Washington's Farewell Address. 171. OLNEY (1900) It has heretofore been considered that anything like an alliance between the United States and an European Power, for any purpose or any time, was something not to be thought of. To give a thing a bad name, however undeservedly, is to do much to discredit it, and there is no doubt that the epithet "entangling" - almost invariably applied has contributed largely to make alliance" popularly and politically odious. Yet there may be "alliances" which are not "entangling" but wholly advantageous, and without the French alliance, American independence, if not prevented, might have been long postponed. It has been a prevalent notion that Washington was inimical to all alliances as such and left on record a solemn warning to his countrymen against them. Yet Washington clearly discriminated between alliances that would entangle and those that would not, and between alliances that were permanent and those that were temporary. Justly construed, Washington's utterances are as wise to-day as when they were made, and are no more applicable to the United States than to any other nation. It must be the policy of every State to avoid alliances that entangle, while temporary and limited are better than general and permanent alliances because friends and partners should be chosen in view of actually existing exigencies rather than in reliance upon doubtful forecasts of the uncertain future. Nevertheless, up to this time the theory and practice of the United States have been against all alliances peremptorily. RICHARD OLNEY, Growth of our Foreign Policy in The Atlantic Monthly, March, 1900. CHAPTER XIX THE EXTENT OF FEDERAL POWERS (1819) SUGGESTIONS THIS report of the famous Supreme Court decision in the McCulloch vs. Maryland Case bears date 1819. Of the decisions made by the Supreme Court in the early part of the century this is the most typical, as setting forth the construction of the powers of the Federal government by the courts. The decision has a place among the documents of Anglo-Saxon liberty because it shows the American theory of limitations, and the extent of the power of the nation to legislate in questions which include individual rights; and the doctrine here stated has ever since been the foundation of American national government. The exposition and comments which follow give an opportunity for acquaintance with the opinions of the ablest constitutional expounders. For Outlines and Material, see Appendix B, § 5. DOCUMENT Decision in the Case of M'Culloch vs. the State of Maryland. United States Court Re- of the full opinion. Statement of the issue. (1819) Writ of error from the court of appeals of Maryland. MARSHALL, C. J., delivered the opinion of the court. In the case now to be determined, the defendant, a sovereign State, denies the obligation of a law enacted by the legislature of the Union; and the plaintiff, on his part, contests the validity of an act which has been passed by the legislature of that State. The constitution of our country, in its most interesting and vital parts, is to be considered; the conflicting powers of the government of the |