Alton B. Parker.
147
them all. Facility in affording this is apt to ¡ that he does. Judge Parker says in the dis increase inversely with the competence of senting opinion: the judge. Distinction in style, for example, The decision about to be made is an un postulates a large gift of imagination; and usually interesting one because it introduces the sober traditions of the bench have pretty a new feature into the law of contracts, by uniformly and doubtless wisely repressed any which persons of sound and open minds and imaginative tendency in writing judicial honest purposes are cut off in one direction opinions. from freedom of contract, in that they may Seldom do modern judges reveal a distinc not agree that an intermediary shall for all tive tendency of thought.1 But when a man purposes of the contract be deemed the with Judge Parker's marked gift of original agent of one of the parties if some 'court be and forceful thinking is brought face to face of the opinion that he was the agent of the with the novel and pressing problems now other."" It is in regard to some of the more recent coming before our modern courts, and mark causes affecting what has come to be known edly before our Courts of Equity, it is in as "labor legislation" and kindred subjects, evitable that his personality should find ade that interest has lately centered around quate expression. In insurance cases i Judge Parker's opinions. In these cases he Judge Parker has shown a decided ten- ' has either led the dissent or succeeded in dency to enforce the strict letter of the carrying the Court by his own casting vote. policy, even to a further extent than In 1897 the New York Legislature passed seems to be required by the drift of the what is known as the Prevailing Rate of modern decisions. His second opinion, Wages Law, under which it is provided that written after he became Chief-Judge, dis workmen and mechanics on all public works sented vigorously from the Court's decision should receive not less than the prevailing that under the standard policy in its then rate of wages, and that every contract there form, cancellation of the policy was not ef after made for public work should contain a fected merely by notice to that effect from clause binding the contractor to pay the pre the company, but that the fro rata premium vailing rate of wages; with very drastic pro must actually be returned.2 So again Judge visions for violation. The City of New York Parker wrote an opinion dissenting from the accordingly made a contract containing this conclusion of the Court that the medical clause, and afterwards the question of the examiner on an application for a life insur constitutionality of the statute was raised in ance policy does not become the agent of mandamus proceedings brought by the con the insured because the policy stipulates tractor for payment by the city for work 1 The case of Chief-Justice Marshall is not really an ex done, where it was admitted that the prevail ample of the contrary. Owing to the frequency and ¡in- > ing rate of wages had not been paid. When portance of its constitutional decisions the I'ln'ted States Supreme Court was for the first half of thi- last century the case reached the Court of Appeals, the largely a political rather than a judicial body, l'iuler Court was so thoroughly convinced of the the Federal Constitution these questions came before a Court; but they were fundamentally the same kind of utter badness and unconstitutionally of the questions as were coming before the British parliament. I Act, that it promptly awarded the relief although they arose in a very different form. Strongly marked opinions on such questions, governing one's de sought, in spite of the fact that whether the cisions uniformly, are expected in a judge. Lincoln al law were constitutional or not, the contrac ways said that he submitted to the Dred Scott decision as a statement of law, " but not as a rule of political action." i
- Tisdell v. New Hampshire Hre Insurance Company,
155 N. Y. 163.
3 Sternaman т. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 170 N. Y. 13, 28. See also Hustace?•. Phénix Ins. Co., 175 Nr. Y. 292 : Strauss -•. I'nion Central Life Ins. Co., 170 N. Y. 349.
