steps taken in the case and describing Randolph's able argument of two and one half hours, the summary continued: "When Mr. Randolph had closed his speech, the Court, after remarking on the importance of the subject now before them, and the necessity of obtaining every possible light on it, expressed a wish to hear any gentleman of the Bar who might be disposed to take up the gauntlet in opposition to the Attorney General. As no gentlemen, however, were so disposed, the Court held the matter under advisement until Monday, the 18th instant, when in presence of a numerous and respectable audience, they severally declared their opinions on the question that had
been argued. Judge Iredell was first called on by the Chief Justice for his opinion. In an argument of an
hour and a quarter, he maintained the negative of this
question ; he considered the States as so many separate
independent sovereignties. . . . Judge Wilson next took
a very broad and enlarged view of the question, which
he thought would again resolve itself into a question
of no less magnitude than whether the people of the
United States formed a nation. . . . His argument was
elegant, learned and contained principles and sentiments
highly republican. It occupied an hour and concluded pointedly and unequivocally for the motion of Mr. Randolph.[1] . . . Chief Justice Jay delivered one of the most clear, profound, and elegant arguments perhaps ever given in a Court of Judicature." Short accounts of Judge Blair's and Judge Cushing's opinions were also given.
- ↑ In Judge Wilson's opinion, the opening words of which now read: "This is a case of uncommon magnitude. One of the parties to it is a State, certainly respectable, claiming to be sovereign. The question to be determined is, whether this State so respectable, and whose claim soars so high is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States?" there was an interesting change made from his original draft. In the draft in Wilson's handwriting which is now in the Library of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, the second sen- tence reads: "One of the parties who appears before this tribunal is a State '*, etc. The words in italics were omitted in the opinion as delivered.
