This definition is an utterly false one. It denies all the natural rights of the people; and is resorted to only by usurpers and tyrants, to justify their crimes. The true definition of law is, that it is a fixed, immutable, natural principle; and not anything that man ever made, or can make, unmake, or alter. Thus we speak of the laws of matter, and the laws of mind; of the law of gravitation, the laws of light, heat, and electricity, the laws of chemistry, geology, botany; of physiological laws, of astronomical and atmospherical laws, etc., etc. All these are natural laws, that man never made, nor can ever unmake, or alter. The law of justice is just as supreme and universal in the moral world, as these others are in the mental or physical world; and is as unalterable as are these by any human power. And it is just as false and absurd to talk of anybody's having the power to abolish the law of justice, and set up their own will in its stead, as it would be to talk of their having the power to abolish the law of gravitation, or any of the other natural laws of the universe, and set up their own will in the place of them. Yet Marshall holds that this natural law of justice is no law at all, in comparison with some "rule of civil conduct prescribed by [what he calls] the supreme power in a State." And he gives this miserable definition, which he picked up somewhere--out of the legal filth in which he wallowed--as his sufficient authority for striking down all the natural obligation of men's contracts, and all men's natural rights to make their own contracts; and for upholding the State governments in prohibiting all such contracts as they, in their avarice and tyranny, may choose to prohibit. He does it too, directly in the face of that very constitution, which he professes to uphold, and which declares that "No State shall pass any law impairing the [natural] obligation of contracts." By the same rule, or on the same definition of law, he would strike down any and all the other natural rights of mankind. That such a definition of law should suit the purposes of men like Marshall, who believe that governments should have all power, and men no rights, accounts for the fact that, in this country, men have had no "_rights_"--but only such permits as lawmakers have seen fit to allow them--since the State and United States governments were established,--or at least for the last eighty years. Marshall also said: The right [of government] to regulate contracts, to prescribe the rules by which they may be evidenced, _to prohibit such as may be deemed mischievous, is unquestionable_, and has been universally exercised.--_Ogden vs. Saunders, 12 Wheaton 347._