On February 24, 1803, less than two weeks after the
arguments had closed. Chief Justice Marshall handed
down his famous decision. As stated in the news-
paper accounts of the day, the questions considered
by the Court were: "1st. Has the applicant a right
to the commission he demands ? 2d. If he has a right
and that right has been violated, do the laws of his
country afford him a remedy? 3d. K they do afford
him a remedy, is it by a mandamus issuing from this
Court ? ** ^ Taking up these pointa in the order in which
they were thus propounded, Marshall gave an opinion
on all three. Marbury's commission having been
signed and sealed, said the Chief Justice, the appoint-
ment was not revocable but vested in him legal rights
which were protected by the laws of the country.
Dehvery or acceptance of the conmiission was not
necessary. "The Government of the United States
has been emphatically termed a government of laws,
and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve
this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for
the violation of a vested legal right.'* Where a head of a
department acted merely as the political or confiden-
tial agent of the Executive, in a case where the Execu-
tive possessed a constitutional or legal discretion, the
Courts might not control him; but where a specific
duty was imposed by law, he was "amenable to the
laws for his conduct; and cannot at his discretion
sport away the vested rights of others/' In such
cases, he might be subject to mandamus. At this
point, the Chief Justice took cognizance of the attack
which had been launched at the Court in Congress.
"Impressions are often received," he said, "without
much reflection or examination, and it is not wonder-
1 National InidHgeneer, Feb. 12. 28, 1803; American Daily AdverHter (Phil.). Feb. 25. 1808.
