he does not seem to have had any overweaning ambition or ever to have sought office, In temperament he was the antithesis of his predecessor in the Chief Justiceship of the United States. He enjoyed a great reputa tion for eloquence, but the fragmentary ex amples of his speeches which are still extant by no means sustain that reputation. The diction is below mediocrity rather than above it, the sentiments commonplace. Much must have depended upon the vigor and magnet ism of his personality. Yet his portrait by Trumbull presents no very pleasing picture. There is something about it that forcibly re minds one of the portraits of His Majesty King George the Third. John Rutledge was born at Charleston, South Carolina, in September, 1739. The exact date is not known. His father was a physician, and had emigrated from Ireland four years previously. His mother was but fifteen at the time of his birth. Doctor Rutledge died in 1749, leaving his wife with seven children, of whom John was the eldest. No pains were spared upon the education of the future Chief Justice. His father was his earliest instructor. After his death the boy was placed under the charge of a Reverend Mr. Andrews, with whom he remained for several years. Later a gentleman, David Rhind by name, who had an excellent repu tation as a classical scholar, directed his studies. In the summer of 1755 he began the study of the law with James Parsons, a barrister of distinction, an Irishman by birth, and a devoted American patriot by principle, who held several important public offices during the revolutionary period, and was vice-president of South Carolina at the time of his death in 1779. Rutledge continued in the office of Mr. Parsons for two years. In 1758 he went to London, where he was en tered as a student at the Temple, and three years afterwards was called to the English bar. This was the regular course at that time for young men of South Carolina who intended to adopt the law as a profession. He seems to have created great expectations
at the Temple by his ability. His reputation preceded him to Charleston. During these three years the great Pitt was Prime Minis ter, Lord Mansfield presided in the King's Bench, and Henley was Lord Keeper. Upon Rutledge's return to Charleston in 1761 he leaped at once into fame and a practice. Be fore the ship which brought him had reached the city an eager client had met it and re tained the young lawyer. His first appear ance at the bar made an extraordinary im pression, and he was never in want of a lucrative practice, until the pressure of pub lic events absorbed him in politics. The bar of Charleston at that time was not numer ous. Mr. Flanders estimates that it could not have exceeded twenty. The fees appear to have been extraordinarily large. Rutledge is said to have received one hundred guineas for his first case. On the I7th of September, 1764, he was appointed Attorney General of the Province, and performed the duties of that position until the 5th of June, 1765. So great was his success at the bar that it became custo mary to believe that the result of the cases in which he was engaged was a foregone conclusion. Prior to 1/69 all the courts were held at Charleston. In that year the judicial system was reorganized, and ses sions of the courts held in the parishes. This necessitated riding the circuit by both bench and bar. During these years the poli tics of South Carolina were becoming unset tled. Rutledge was a member of the Pro vincial Assembly, and characteristically fought for the rights of the colonists against royal oppression. The royal governor waxed arbitrary until, in 1764, he refused to admin ister the oath to General Gadsden as a mem ber of the Assembly. The Assembly itself protested against this high-handed act. The usurpation of power was vigorously de nounced, and by none more boldly than by Rutledge. The succeeding year he took up with spirit and zeal the proposal of Massa chusetts that the Provincial assemblies should send delegates to a common Con
