[Footnote 1:  Mr. Peter Harvey, in his Reminiscences (p. 122), has an anecdote in regard to Webster and Pinkney, which places the former in the light of a common and odious bully, an attitude as alien to Mr. Webster’s character as can well be conceived.  The story is undoubtedly either wholly fictitious or so grossly exaggerated as to be practically false.  On the page preceding the account of this incident, Mr. Harvey makes Webster say that he never received a challenge from Randolph, whereas in Webster’s own letter, published by Mr. Curtis, there is express reference to a note of challenge received from Randolph.  This is a fair example of these Reminiscences.  A more untrustworthy book it would be impossible to imagine.  There is not a statement in it which can be safely accepted, unless supported by other evidence.  It puts its subject throughout in the most unpleasant light, and nothing has ever been written about Webster so well calculated to injure and belittle him as these feeble and distorted recollections of his loving and devoted Boswell.  It is the reflection of a great man upon the mirror of a very small mind and weak memory.]

The defendant Woodward having died, Mr. Webster moved that the judgment be entered nunc pro tunc.  Pinkney and Wirt objected on the ground that the other causes on the docket contained additional facts, and that no final judgment should be entered until these causes had been heard.  The court, however, granted Mr. Webster’s motion.  Mr. Pinkney then tried to avail himself of the stipulation in regard to the special verdict, that any new and material facts might be added or any facts expunged.  Mr. Webster peremptorily declined to permit any change, obtained judgment against Woodward, and obliged Mr. Pinkney to consent that the other causes should be remanded, without instructions, to the Circuit Court, where they were heard by Judge Story, who rendered a decree nisi for the college.  This closed the case, and such were the last displays of Mr. Webster’s dexterous and vigorous management of the famous “college causes.”

The popular opinion of this case seems to be that Mr. Webster, with the aid of Mr. Mason and Judge Smith, developed a great constitutional argument, which he forced upon the acceptance of the court by the power of his close and logical reasoning, and thus established an interpretation of the Constitution of vast moment.  The truth is, that the suggestion of the constitutional point, not a very remarkable idea in itself, originated, as has been said, with a layman, was regarded by Mr. Webster as a forlorn hope, and was very briefly discussed by him before the Supreme Court.  He knew, of course, that if the case were to be decided against Woodward, it could only be on the constitutional point, but he evidently thought that the court would not take the view of it which was favorable to the college.  The Dartmouth College case was unquestionably one of