tee of careful preparation and argument. The names of Erskine, Brougham and Cockburn in like manner suggest eloquence and holy zeal, if not learning in the law. And finally the very name of the judge means much. Chief Justice Marshall is al most in itself of persuasive weight. Chief Justice Taney is of hardly less authority; while of the justices, Story and Curtis, es pecially the latter, enjoy great and merited influence. In Massachusetts, Chief Justice Shaw and Justice ^'ilde; in New York, Chancellor Kent; in Pennsylvania, Chief Jus tice Gibson; in North Carolina, Chief Justice Rtiffin, are, indeed, names to conjure with. The judgment of a less known judge may be no less worthy of respect; but the names of these judges are a guarantee for learning and careful preparation in the formation of the judgment and of accurate expression of- the principles of the law in the opinion itself. Even the dicta of these judges cannot be over looked, notably Marshall's numerous dicta in Marbury v. Madison, 1803, i Cranch 137. In the same way an English case decided by Hardwicke, Eldon, Westbury, Cairns, Hatherly (Wood), Jessel, Mansfield, Parke, Blackburn, Bramwell or Bowen, deserves and will receive careful attention. And this is especially so when the judge has had revious extensive practice at the bar as England. As an example of this take license Cases, 1847, 5 Howard 504, in Taney as Chief Justice rejects his v twenty years before in Brown v. 0n"827, 12 Wheaton 419. Again the iru.ns 0* a judge of great experithat mah0w a more rounded grasp, enced lawyl differ from an earlier things that h>™ »• Clymer, 1845, The expression' Ch¡ef Justice Gibnarrative as he rt opinion as Justice he looks the examï82S, 12 S. & R. brightens as he rethat opinion for incidents; he uses geition, by their in his station of life, ¿ons of the part of the story he is narra. of the his tale in his own accusto.' the If, however, the manner of ti
117
lt thus appears that the parties to the ac tion may add an interest to the case and sug gest other branches of the law, or fields of activity; that the names of the lawyers in the case are of themselves a guarantee of a care ful and elaborate argument of the question or questions at issue; and that the profes sional careers of judges while at the bar, and their experience on the bench, render their opinions worthy of the greatest weight and consideration. I would, therefore, venture to suggest in conclusion that students and practitioners cannot well afford to neglect the sketches and biographies—where they exist—of the distinguished lawyers and judges who have honored bench and bar. The Dictionary of National Biography, edited by Leslie Stephen and Sydney Lee (67 vols. 1885-1903) gives a sketch of every distinguished lawyer and judge of Great Britain and the Colonies, who has died before January, 1901. The most authoritative works on the judges are Foss' Lives of the Judges (9 vols. 1848-1865); Foss' Biographia Jiiridica, an abridgement of the former work, appeared in one volume in 1870. Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors and of The Chief Justices are too well known to need comment. Racy and interesting, they lack the accuracyof the dictionary and works by Foss. In America, Carson's History of the Su preme Court of the United States, (2 vols. 2nd ed., 1902,) gives an admirable historical and critical survey of the Supreme Courts, and its distinguished chief and associate jus tices. Appleton's Cyclopaedia of American Biography, (6 vols., "1885-1886— 1888-1889) to date of publication and the English and American editions of Who's Who, put the reader in a position to judge of the educa tional and legal qualifications of the more distinguished contemporary lawyers of Great Britain and the United States. I am; very truly yours, JAMES B. SCOTT. Columbia University School of Law, New York, January 9, 1904.
