Chief Justice Marshall and Virginia -jjc) interfere with or reverse the decision of state tribunals acting within their jurisdictions, and that no treaty obhgations had been impaired, since the confiscatory act of the Mrginia legislature had been passed before the cessation of hostilities. The point which the national court had made, in issuing the mandamus, that Virginia had not actually taken possession before 1783, and that she could not do so afterwards was scarcely noticed. Roane's paper was a po- litical manifesto designed to advance the cause of state sovereignty and to arouse hostility towards Marshall, who seemed still to dominate the national court. Public discussion was at once aroused and the local court was fully sustained in its refusal to honor the mandamus. John Taylor of Caroline took up his pen once more on behalf of state rights and the Enquirer "thundered" against the great chief justice who was again proving false to the " ancient Dominion ". The United States Supreme Court had made the tactical blunder of ordering the state court to reverse its own decision and to execute an opposing judgment. Roane had made full use of his oppor- tunity.' Marshall and his fellow judges took immediate notice of the refusal of Mrginia to recognize the mandamus of 1813- and went once again over the case, reaffirming the points formerly made. Story now delivered the opinion of the court, Johnson still dissenting. These opinions were published in the Xatioiial Intelli- gencer and reprinted in the Virginia papers. The United States marshal for Western Mrginia was ordered to execute the judg- ment of the Supreme Court. This was the first " pass at arms " between the Mrginia school of states-rights advocates and the great chief justice. To the popular mind the point that Marshall had sought to make was that a state was subordinate to the Union ; Roane had shown that a state could refuse obedience to the national authority with impunity. The second conflict between the two great opposing theories of government came immediately after the decision of the case of McCulloch z: Maryland in March, 1819. In this case the crucial arguments for the Mrginia chief justice and his powerful following were those which endorsed the doctrine of " implied powers " — a subject so full of difficulties that both Madison and Monroe had halted at its determination — and declared that a state law incon- sistent with the reasonable purpose of a national statute was null and void. For the Supreme Court thus to solve great political problems ' Conversation with Chief Justice Keith of Virginia, a close connection of the Marshall family. - I Wheaton, 304.
