Masterpieces are made up, first, of opinions delivered from the bench by Lords Mans field (i), Stowell (i), Bowen (4); by Chief Justice Marshall (4), and B. R. Curtis (i); second, of professional opinions as distin guished from judgments or arguments in courts: Lord Mansfield (i), Alexander Hamilton (i), Horace Binney (i), and James C. Carter (i); third, of arguments and briefs, by Erskine (5), Curran (i), Brougham (i), Horace Binney (i), Webster (3), Cockburn (i), B. R. Curtis (4, including one charge to a jury), Wendell Phillips (i), Charles O'Conor (3), R. H. Dana, Jr. (i), J..S. Black (i), D. D. Field (i), Wm. M. Evarts (3), and James C. Carter (i). 'Ihat the selection is well made, no one will question, for no undeserving name appears. The judicial and professional opinions, as well as the briefs and arguments included, deserve preservation and publication as models for study and imitation. One name alone will, perhaps, surprise the profession, for Wendell Phillips is known as orator and agitator, not as a lawyer. A careful reading, however, will at once show that the platforms and a great cause deprived the law of a great and leading advocate. Phillips' argument in support of a petition for the removal of Judge Loring (1855)—"an outrageously able speech," as Rufus Choate termed it—does undoubtedly give Wendell Phillips, as Mr. Veeder states, "an honorable place in forensic annals." But if the selection is not open to objecttion on the ground of inclusion, it may be subject to criticism on the ground of exclu sion. Sir James Mackintosh's superb defense of Jean Peltier on a libel against Napoleon Bonaparte (1803), merited printing in whole or in part, both from the interest of the subject and from the rare ability and eloquence displayed by Mackintosh. Erskine, who was present at its delivery, thus expressed himself in writing: "I cannot shake off from my nerves the effect of your powerful and most wonderful speech, which so com pletely disqualified you for Trinidad or India. I could not help saying to myself, as you were speaking, '0 tcrram illam beatam quae
hunc virum accipcrit, hanc ingratam si cjicerit, miscram si amiscrit.' I perfectly approve the verdict, but the manner in which you opposed it I shall always consider as one of the most splendid monuments of genius, literature and eloquence." Again, neither Rufus nor Joseph H. Choate figures in the text; but Mr. Veeder has not overlooked, although he has refused them admittance. As regards the elder, the editor certainly does justify him self in the introduction (pp. xxi—xxii), and it must be conceded that, how ever successful as a lawyer and ad vocate, Rufus Choate is not to be imitated. As Mr. Veeder says, and truly: "As compo sitions, his speeches (except the occasional orations revised and published by him) are by no means safe models." The case of Joseph H. Choate is different, but feeling it neces sary to choose between Mr. Carter and Mr. Choate, the editor preferred the former. "As a jury advocate he [Mr. Carter] is, perhaps, surpassed by Mr. Joseph H. Choate, and others may equal him in learning or in native ability; but in the combined qualities of sterl ing character, breadth of mind, and varied culture, he has had few superiors among American lawyers, past or present." (p. 1197). True, but was it necessary to make the choice, or was it necessary to include two specimens from Mr. Carter, instead of divid ing the crown? A few other instances might be mentioned, but this is Mr. Veeder's selection, and it is unfair to criticise him in this minor matter. Mr. Veeder may be right and the reviewer wrong. The editor's answer is easy and conclusive, namely, that he could not well compress hundreds of volumes into two without many a sigh and sincere regret. Passing from the purpose and the selec tion itself, the question remains, how has Mr. Veeder performed the editorial part of his work? And to this, there is only one reply, admirably. A short biographical note of Judge and Lawyer represented is given con taining the essential facts of their careers, and this is invariably followed by an essay sometimes long and comprehensive, always
