The replies of the opposing counsel were poor enough after such a speech.  Holmes’s declamation sounded rather cheap, and Mr. Wirt, thrown off his balance by Mr. Webster’s exposure of his ignorance, did but slight justice to himself or his cause.  March 12th the arguments were closed, and the next day, after a conference, the Chief Justice announced that the court could agree on nothing and that the cause must be continued for a year, until the next term.  The fact probably was that Marshall found the judges five to two against the college, and that the task of bringing them into line was not a light one.

In this undertaking, however, he was powerfully aided by the counsel and all the friends of the college.  The old board of trustees had already paid much attention to public opinion.  The press was largely Federalist, and, under the pressure of what was made a party question, they had espoused warmly the cause of the college.  Letters and essays had appeared, and pamphlets had been circulated, together with the arguments of the counsel at Exeter.  This work was pushed with increased eagerness after the argument at Washington, and the object now was to create about the three doubtful judges an atmosphere of public opinion which should imperceptibly bring them over to the college.  Johnson, Livingston, and Story were all men who would have started at the barest suspicion of outside influence even in the most legitimate form of argument, which was all that was ever thought of or attempted.  This made the task of the trustees very delicate and difficult in developing a public sentiment which should sway the judges without their being aware of it.  The printed arguments of Mason, Smith, and Webster were carefully sent to certain of the judges, but not to all.  All documents of a similar character found their way to the same quarters.  The leading Federalists were aroused everywhere, so that the judges might be made to feel their opinion.  With Story, as a New England man, a Democrat by circumstances, a Federalist by nature, there was but little difficulty.  A thorough review of the case, joined with Mr. Webster’s argument, caused him soon to change his first impression.  To reach Livingston and Johnson was not so easy, for they were out of New England, and it was necessary to go a long way round to get at them.  The great legal upholder of Federalism in New York was Chancellor Kent.  His first impression, like that of Story, was decidedly against the college, but after much effort on the part of the trustees and their able allies, Kent was converted, partly through his reason, partly through his Federalism, and then his powers of persuasion and his great influence on opinion came to bear very directly on Livingston, more remotely on Johnson.  The whole business was managed like a quiet, decorous political campaign.  The press and the party were everywhere actively interested.  At first, and in the early summer of 1818, before Kent was converted, matters looked badly for the trustees.  Mr. Webster knew the complexion of the court, and hoped little from the point raised in Trustees vs.  Woodward.  Still, no one despaired, and the work was kept up until, in September, President Brown wrote to Mr. Webster in reference to the argument:—­