Mr.Mason's brief, which really covered the whole case, was that the acts of the Legislature were not obligatory, 1, because they were not within the general scope of legislative power; 2, because they violated certain provisions of the Constitution of New Hampshire restraining legislative power; 3, because they violated the Constitution of the United States.

In Farrar's report of Mason's speech, twenty-three pages are devoted to the first point, eight to the second, and six to the third.

In other words, the third point, involving the great constitutional doctrine on which the case was finally decided at Washington, the doctrine that the Legislature, by its acts, had impaired the obligation of a contract, was passed over lightly.

In so doing Mr.Mason was not alone.

Neither he nor Judge Smith nor Mr.Webster nor the court nor the counsel on the other side, attached much importance to this point.