The tirade could have no other result than a personal quarrel and a party schism. Madison and the Administration had done nothing to deserve the attack, and of course could not trust Randolph again. The question whether the claimants had rights which the government would do well to compromise was for the law to decide, and was ultimately settled by Chief-Justice Marshall in their favor. The question of morality, in regard to sanctioning fraud, though a much wider issue, was not to be settled _ex parte_, but must abide by the answer to the question of law. Only the State-rights difficulty remained; and even on that delicate ground, although the right of Georgia to repudiate her own pledges under the plea of her own corruption were conceded, the State-rights theory could not insist that this act must bind other States, or affect any sovereignty except that which was directly involved. After the property in question had been sold to the United States government, Georgia need not prevent the purchaser from doing what it would with its own. Randolph could not make State-rights serve his whole purpose in the argument, and was obliged to rely on the charge of sanctioning corruption and fraud,--a charge irrelevant to the claim of innocent third parties like the New Englanders, unless he could prove their complicity, which was not in his power. Randolph’s harangue struck at the credit of Madison; and the conduct of the Postmaster-General in acting as claim-agent cast a shadow of corruption over the whole government. Madison’s friends were obliged to take up the challenge; and his brother-in-law, John G. Jackson of Virginia, replied to Randolph in a speech which was thought to bear evident marks of Madison’s hand. Some of Jackson’s retorts carried a sting. Randolph had dwelt much on the silence and discipline of the majority. “When unprincipled men,” said he, “acquire the ascendency, they act in concert and are silent.” “Silence and concert, then,” retorted Jackson, “are to him proofs of corrupt motive. Is this always a correct position? Does the gentleman recollect that measures were adopted a few years past without discussion, by my political friends in conjunction with him, who were _silent and united_?” Throughout Jackson’s speech ran a tone of irritating disregard for his colleague, “whose influence in this House is equal to the rapacity of the speculator whose gigantic grasp has been described by him as extending from the shores of Lake Erie to the mouth of the Mobile.” Whether Madison meant it or not, an impression prevailed in the House that in Jackson’s speech the Secretary of State took up Randolph’s challenge with a defiance equally strong.