In the annals of the Supreme Court and the development of American constitutional law the name of John Marshall stands preëminent. He was appointed Chief Justice by President John Adams, and took his seat on the Bench at the beginning of the new century (February 4, 1801). He was without judicial experience, but his record in other fields of activity and his well-known Federalist principles pointed him out as a man to be reckoned with and explain the aversion with which he was viewed by Thomas Jefferson, the incoming President. The breach between the President and the Chief Justice was widened by some of the early decisions of the latter upholding the supremacy of the National Government and the powers of the Supreme Court, notably the famous case of _Marbury v. Madison_,[1] in which was asserted the power of the Court to declare an act of Congress void as in conflict with the Constitution. Some years elapsed, however, before a case was decided which squarely involved a conflict between the powers of the Federal Government and the powers of a state. The issue came up in the case of _United States v. Judge Peters_.[2] This case involved a conflict of jurisdiction between the federal courts and the authorities of the State of Pennsylvania over the distribution of some prize money. Marshall's decision was a strong assertion of the federal jurisdiction and power. The Governor of Pennsylvania, under sanction of the state legislature, called out the state militia to resist enforcement of the judgment of the Court. Matters were tense for a time and bloodshed seemed imminent but the state finally backed down. [Footnote 1: 1 Cranch, 137.] [Footnote 2: 5 Cranch, 115, decided in 1809.] In the following year (1810) came the case of _Fletcher v. Peck_,[1] in which for the first time a statute of a state was held by the Supreme Court to be void as repugnant to the Federal Constitution. The State of Georgia had sought by statute to destroy rights in lands acquired under a previous act. It was held that the statute was unconstitutional as impairing the obligation of contracts within the meaning of the Constitution. [Footnote 1: 6 Cranch, 87.] In _Martin v. Hunter's Lessee_[1] was asserted the right of the Federal Supreme Court to overrule the judgment of a state court on questions arising under the Federal Constitution. The State of Virginia had denied that right and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Virginia Court of Appeals. [Footnote 1: 1 Wheat., 304 (1816.)] In _McCulloch v. State of Maryland_,[1] a case involving an attempt by the State of Maryland to tax the Bank of the United States, Marshall's doctrine of implied powers was elaborated, and the judgment of the state court upholding the tax was reversed. [Footnote 1: 4 Wheat., 316 (1819).]