It was pure argument on general principles.

Mr.
Webster does not reach that point of intense clearness and condensation which characterized Marshall and Hamilton, in whose writings we are fascinated by the beauty of the intellectual display, and are held fast by each succeeding line, which always comes charged with fresh meaning.
Nevertheless, Mr.Webster touches a very high point in this most difficult form of argument, and the impressiveness of his manner and voice carried all that he said to its mark with a direct force in which he stood unrivalled.
In Ogden v.

Saunders, heard in 1827, Mr.Webster argued that the clause prohibiting state laws impairing the obligation of contracts covered future as well as past contracts.

He defended his position with astonishing ability, but the court very correctly decided against him.

The same qualities which appear in these cases are shown in the others of a like nature, which were conspicuous among the multitude with which he was intrusted.