HAMPTON L. CARSON. SPECIAL ADDRESS. AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE EVOLUTION OF NATIONAL AUTHORITY. HAMPTON L. CARSON, OF PHILADELPHIA, Mr. President and Members of the Illinois State Bar Association: The honor of your invitation and the courteous terms in which it was couched have brought me, a citizen of Pennsylvania, to this goodly city to congratulate you upon your many years of useful and successful existence, and to rejoice with you that though separated by one thousand miles of territory, and the theoretical barriers of intervening sovereign States, we can still boast that we are fellow citizens of the same Republic, and fellow members of the American Bar. Five months ago, upon the original and patriotic suggestion of one of your most distinguished members, commemorative services were held in every corner of the land in perpetuation of the gratitude and reverence of the whole. people for the judicial labors of John Marshall, which under the Providence of God, did so much to make and preserve the Nation. The addresses of the 4th of February last serve to fix the attention of the profession upon the bold and majestic features of our national jurisprudence, and it has occurred to me that, in modest supplement to what was then said in acknowledgment of the debt which we owe to the genius and virtue of the great Chief Justice, I might properly, on this occasion, call your attention to a striking illustration of the SPECIAL ADDRESS. evolution of national authority in which John Marshall bore a conspicuous part. In the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, among a mass of interesting but unpublished matter relating to the naval history of the American Revolution, can be found the original documents in a celebrated admiralty cause entitled "The Case of the Sloop 'Active.'" Although historians and lawyers are more or less familiar with the main incidents of the narrative, yet many well-informed students of history are ignorant of its details. It is my purpose to present in a concise form the substantial features of the controversy. The case presents a most notable collision between the United States and the State of Pennsylvania. Indeed, it may be said to constitute the only instance of armed resistance on the part of Pennsylvania to Federal authority; for though the Whisky Insurrection, which convulsed the administration of Washington, took place on Pennsylvania soil, yet it was but the tumult of an unorganized mob, and did not represent a rebellion on the part of the State. The case presents the most admirable illustration of the evolution of national authority that can be found in the books. It lasted more than thirty years, beginning in 1778 and terminating in 1809. It originated in a controversy as to a prize, in the midst of the American Revolution. It outlived the old Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture, the establishment of which it did much to hasten; it survived the collapse of the Confederation, and was brought twenty years later before the Supreme Court of the United States for final determination. It exhibits at the outset the political impotence of the Continental Congress, uttering a feeble protest against State power, while fully conscious of their own rights, vet cowering beneath the prospect of a clash of authority. It displays, a few years later, the increasing strength and courage of the infant ration-the gristle hardening into bone-and it ter HAMPTON L. CAR ON. minates, after a series of sharp conflicts between State and Federal officers, in the absolute triumph of the national power. It displays all the inherent qualities of a romance, and its scenes are crowded with the most distinguished personages, who are arrayed against each other in situations. which are highly dramatic. It opens with a tale of heroism cheated of its reward by jealousy and chicanery, contending with indomitable perseverance against great odds, until at the end of a struggle of thirty years an old man of ninety receives the fruits of his valor, and justice prevails over the plots which had been devised to entrap her. In the early part of September, 1778, Gideon Olmsted, a sturdy Connecticut fisherman, and three associates, were captured by the British upon the open sea, in the neighborhood of Cape Charles, and were carried to Jamaica. There they were put on board the sloop "Active" and forced, much against their will, to assist in the navigation of the vessel to New York with a cargo of arms and supplies for the British army, then occupying that city. One night Olmsted boldly resolved to seize the vessel, and, unfolding his plans to his friends, they rose upon the master and crew, more than thrice their number, confined them to the cabin below the hatches, took possession of the sloop, and steered for Little Egg Harbor in New Jersey. A two days' struggle ensued, in which shots were exchanged, and desperate efforts were made by the men below to recapture the vessel. The British melted pewter spoons into bullets, forced up the hatches, and swept the deck with their fire. Olmsted was severely wounded, but succeeded in turning a swivel gun, heavily loaded, down the companionway, and thus secured control. The British captain then cut a hole through the stern and wedged the rudder so as to prevent Olmsted from steering, releasing it only when the pangs of hunger and thirst compelled submission. Having completed his capture, and being in full sight of land, Olm SPECIAL ADDRESS. sted was pursued and forcibly taken, against his indignant protest, by an armed brig named the "Convention," fitted out by the State of Pennsylvania, and commanded by Captain Thomas Houston, who insisted upon carrying the "Active" into Philadelphia, where he claimed her as his prize. A claim was also made by the captain of an American privateer, "Le Gerard," cruising by agreement in concert with the "Convention," and in sight at the time of the alleged capture. It was argued that Olmsted's victory had not been complete, and that it was absurd to suppose that four men could have subdued fourteen. To this it was replied that the facts were as stated, and that the British captain had surrendered. The depositions of the witnesses, now on file at Washington, certainly sustain this assertion. The case was tried before Judge George Ross and a jury, under the terms of an Act of Assembly, which had been passed but nine days before the trial, by which it was provided that while an appeal upon questions of law could be carried to Congress, yet the "finding of the facts by the jury shall be without re-examination or appeal." The jury found (most unwarrantably, it seems to us) that the Connecticut captors were entitled to but one-fourth of the prize, and they divided the residue among the State of Pennsylvania, the owners of the privateer, and the officers and crews of the "Convention" and "Le Gerard." The judge, who was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, did not conceal his sympathy with the heroic conduct of Olmsted, but found himself unable to overcome the local prejudices of the jury in favor of the mariners of their own State, and, moreover, felt himself coerced by the express language of the law into a confirmation of the verdict. Olmsted and his associates were too spirited to submit, and promptly appealed to Congress. Security was required, and in his plight the unknown and friendless Olmsted applied to Benediet Arnold, himself a native of Connecticut, then military |