These cases, in accordance with his suggestion, were begun, but before they came on in the Circuit Court, Mr.Webster made his great effort in Washington.

Three quarters of his legal argument were there devoted to the points in the Circuit Court cases, which were not in any way before the Supreme Court in the College vs.Woodward.So little, indeed, did Mr.Webster think of the great constitutional question which has made the case famous, that he forced the other points in where he admitted that they had no proper standing, and argued them at length.

They were touched upon by Marshall, who, however, decided wholly upon the constitutional question, and they were all thrown aside by Judge Washington, who declared them irrelevant, and rested his decision solely and properly on the constitutional point.

Two months after his Washington argument, Mr.Webster, still urging forward the Circuit Court cases, wrote to Mr.Mason that all the questions must be brought properly before the Supreme Court, and that, on the "general principle" that the State Legislature could not divest vested rights, strengthened by the constitutional provisions of New Hampshire, he was sure they could defeat their adversaries.

Thus this doctrine of "impairing the obligation of contracts," which produced a decision in its effects more far-reaching and of more general interest than perhaps any other ever made in this country, was imported into the case at the suggestion of laymen, was little esteemed by counsel, and was comparatively neglected in every argument.
It is necessary to go back now, for a moment, in the history of the case.
The New Hampshire court decided against the plaintiffs on every point, and gave a very strong and elaborate judgment, which Mr.Webster acknowledged was "able, plausible, and ingenious." After much wrangling, the counsel agreed on a special verdict, and took the case up on a writ of error to the Supreme Court.