William D. Guthrie, a prominent New York attorney, opens his address on Magna Carta by noting that the Constitutional Convention of New York paused its work to commemorate the seven-hundredth anniversary of the Great Charter. This framing immediately establishes the collection's central concern: the continuity between medieval English liberties and early twentieth-century American constitutional law. Guthrie's language is deliberate and forensic, often invoking the authority of precedent and the dangers of unchecked power.

Forensic Diction and the Rhetoric of Crisis

Guthrie's addresses are marked by a legalistic vocabulary that treats political questions as matters of constitutional principle. In his discussion of injunctions and labor disputes, he writes of "deliberately and defiantly disobeying" court orders and warns that without judicial restraint, "chaos, anarchy and barbarism are inevitable." This binary framing—order versus anarchy—recurs throughout the collection, particularly in the address on criticism of the courts. Guthrie does not merely argue; he presents alternatives as stark choices, often using the phrase "it is no use blinking this certainty" to foreclose dissent. His sentences are long and clause-heavy, building a cumulative case before delivering a pointed conclusion.

The Mayflower Compact as a Constitutional Precedent

In his response to the toast on the Mayflower Compact, Guthrie treats the 1620 agreement not as a religious covenant but as a secular foundation for self-government. He emphasizes the Compact's language of "just and equal laws" and links it directly to the American constitutional tradition. The address is notable for its avoidance of sentimental patriotism; instead, Guthrie dissects the Compact's legal implications, arguing that it established a precedent for written constitutions. His tone is analytical, drawing parallels between the Pilgrims' circumstances and later constitutional crises. The speech reflects his broader method: locating modern legal questions in historical documents and treating those documents as living authorities rather than museum pieces.

Constitutional Morality and the Limits of Judicial Power

The address on constitutional morality, delivered before the Pennsylvania State Bar Association, is one of the collection's most sustained arguments. Guthrie contends that the Constitution is not merely a set of procedural rules but a moral framework that binds both citizens and officials. He criticizes what he sees as a growing tendency to treat constitutional provisions as obstacles rather than safeguards. His language is often admonitory: he speaks of "the duty of obedience to law" and warns against "the spirit of lawlessness." The address is structured as a series of contrasts—between liberty and license, between constitutional government and mob rule. Guthrie's evidence is drawn from recent court cases and legislative debates, grounding his moral claims in specific legal controversies.

The Eleventh Amendment and Sovereign Immunity

In his address on the Eleventh Amendment, Guthrie provides a detailed analysis of the amendment's origins and its application to suits against states. He traces the amendment's history from the 1793 case of Chisholm v. Georgia through subsequent Supreme Court decisions. His method is textual and historical: he quotes the amendment's language and examines the debates surrounding its ratification. Guthrie argues that the amendment reflects a fundamental principle of state sovereignty, not merely a procedural technicality. The address is dense with citations and legal reasoning, but Guthrie occasionally steps back to note the broader implications for federalism. His tone is that of a practitioner explaining settled law to fellow lawyers, assuming a high level of legal literacy from his audience.

Readers approaching this collection should expect a lawyer's perspective on constitutional history, not a neutral survey. Guthrie's addresses are arguments, shaped by the controversies of their time—labor injunctions, progressive taxation, and the role of the judiciary. The excerpts reveal a writer who uses historical precedent as a weapon in contemporary debates. To engage with these texts is to encounter a particular legal mind at work, one that believes the survival of constitutional government depends on constant vigilance and precise reasoning.