I 72
THE GREEN BAG
there be two propositions, A and B so con nected logically that if A be true and B will also be true; it by no means follows that if A be true in law B will also in law be true. The law, like everything human, is imper fect; but with due respect to this authority, I venture to think the discrepancy will not be found in the logic of the law, but somewhere in the looseness and imper fection of definition. With reference to statutory law the counsel's course is clear. The law, be it right or wrong, must be given its natural effect, and it is not in this class of case that we are likely to be troubled with over citation. It is rather in the intricate and complex commercial cases arising from the incessant movement and modifications in the methods of doing business, and I suggest the enquiry whether in these we might not -gain something by relying more upon fundamental principle and less upon the plethora of reported cases. The great body of general principles which have become so firmly fixed in the common law as to be no longer open to challenge, will not be found to differ materially from the principles of the civil law, and are in general in harmony with reason and justice, and the study of them will give clearness to the vision and vigour to the mind. Happy is the man who can grow old retain ing his sympathy with human nature in general and following the inevitable transi tion in everything around him with a not unfriendly appreciation. To such a one the passing years may mean a little more conservatism, but they will not mean in crustation. We must not mourn over change, for it will come, and no doubt will mean more convenience somewhere. Not in a spirit of senile opposition to every thing new, but still in a reasonably critical spirit we should scrutinize changes as they occur, to see whether anything ought to or could be done about them. There is said to be a great gulf fixed between the final abodes of felicity and despair, but long before
we approach it, we see another yawning gulf that extends back through the ages, nar-. rowing, it is true, as science becomes more perfect, baffling the student, swallowing up for the time being, principles' sound and true in themselves — the great gulf between theory and practice. The bent of some minds is theoretical — of others practical, and, as might be expected, both are well represented in our profession. Is there a tendency for the practical lawyer to increase and for the theoretical lawyer to disappear? I was dining in New York with one of the greatest of corporation lawyers, and in a very good-humoured way he said:" If I should criticize the British lawyer I should say that he approaches every question too much from the point ' of view of theory — of scientific exactitude, and if -he. can block a transaction upon objections absolutely sound in theory, he is just as happy as if he put it through. We, on this side, on the contrary, begin with the realization that it is our duty to facilitate business rather than to obstruct it." I was constrained to admit that the criticism was not altogether unjust. On the other hand, is it not possible that the pendulum may be swinging too far in the other direction. Is not the lawyer becoming too much the business manager of his client's affairs? Are not aggressive ness, adroitness, and commercial acumen, coming to be regarded as the major quali fications, and legal scholarship as one of the minor qualifications for success at the Bar? I must not try to establish a presumption in favor of mediocrity, but do we not usually find truth somewhere in the middle way? The merely practical lawyer, who does not concern himself about the reason of things, can never be called a jurist; he is generally inaccurate, and when confronted by novel conditions he can only deal with them as an empiric. The merely theoretical lawyer becomes visionary. With him, "enterprises of great pith and moment their currents turn awry and lose the name of action." He is like one, who, while the battle is even at
