These propositions were, first, that government has all power; and, secondly, that the people have no rights. These two propositions were, with him, cardinal principles, from which, I think, he never departed. For these reasons he was the oracle of all the rapacious classes, in whose interest the government was administered. And from them he got all his fame. I think his record does not furnish a single instance, in which he ever vindicated men's natural rights, in opposition to the arbitrary legislation of congress. He was chief justice thirty-four years: from 1801 to 1835. In all that time, so far as I have known, he never declared a single act of congress unconstitutional; and probably never would have done so, if he had lived to this time. And, so far as I know, he never declared a single State law unconstitutional, on account of its injustice, or its violation of men's natural rights; but only on account of its conflict with the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. He was considered very profound on questions of "sovereignty." In fact, he never said much in regard to anything else. He held that, in this country, "sovereignty" was divided: that the national government was "sovereign" over certain things; and that the State governments were "sovereign" over all other things. He had apparently never heard of any natural, individual, human rights, that had never been delegated to either the general or State governments. As a practical matter, he seemed to hold that the general government had "sovereignty" enough to destroy as many of the natural rights of the people as it should please to destroy; and that the State governments had "sovereignty" enough to destroy what should be left, if there should be any such. He evidently considered that, to the national government, had been delegated the part of the lion, with the right to devour as much of his prey as his appetite should crave; and that the State governments were jackals, with power to devour what the lion should leave. In his efforts to establish the absolutism of our governments, he made himself an adept in the use of all those false definitions, and false assumptions, to which courts are driven, who hold that constitutions and statute books are supreme over all natural principles of justice, and over all the natural rights of mankind. Here is his definition of law. He professes to have borrowed it from some one,--he does not say whom,--but he accepts it as his own. Law has been defined by a writer, whose definitions especially have been the theme of _almost_ universal panegyric, "_To be a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a State._" In our system, the legislature of a State is the supreme power, in all cases where its action is not restrained by the constitution of the United States.--_Ogden vs. Saunders, 12 Wheaton 347._