His Honor— The Judge By Frank Warren Hackett THE respect exhibited by the bar and by the people of the United States towards the individual person who occupies judicial office greatly helps, no doubt, the Judge himself in preser ving a like measure of regard for his brethren of the bench. Rarely does it happen that a judge permits himself to speak disparagingly of the attainments, or of the acts of another justice with whom he is associated. The writer of a dissenting opinion may upon occasion go so far as to treat with scarcely veiled contempt the reasoning put forward by the majority of the court, but he is most careful even in this extreme in stance to maintain an outward show of deferential regard for his mistaken brethren. Every lawyer knows with what scru pulous care the secrets of the consulta tion room are guarded. If discord at times has its way there, the world out side as a rule hears nothing of it. No volume entitled "The Confessions of a Judge" has yet been published, nor is it likely ever to be announced. Of course, the "inside history" of many a hardfought cause might furnish interesting material for the man who "writes things up for the magazines"; but details as to the process by which courts manage to reach a decision in difficult cases will continue, we may be sure, to be hidden from the eye of the public. An unwritten rule of the court-room requires every one present to behold in the person of the Judge the grave and dignified office that he is administering. Members of the bar instinctively accord to "Your Honor" a large measure of consideration, whether they are address
ing that personage upon the floor of the court-room, or chance to meet him upon the street. This deep-seated re spect for the office, familiar as it is, plays a significant part in holding all good citizens to abide by the law itself. Where several judges sit together as a bench, the court acquires a character of its own. It may be a strong tribunal, or a weak one, according as its mem bers are well-equipped intellectually, or the reverse. In an appellate court one or two at least of the judges are sure to be lawyers of ability. There have been periods when a single member of the court was seen to tower head and shoulders above his fellows. Fortunate is it when in the event that such superi ority exists, it marks the occupant of the office of Chief Justice. That bench where sits a truly great judge, may be depended upon not only to reach sound conclusions, but to put forth decisions marked by uniformity and by con sistency—qualities that prove helpful in building up a system of jurisprudence. It is related of Chief Justice Shaw that once he happened to enter the con sultation-room just in time to hear the closing words of the draft of an opinion that one of the judges had been reading as the language of the court. "What!" exclaimed the Chief Justice, in a tone of surprise, "I did not so understand it." He then concisely stated the facts, and applied certain principles of law, with such precision and aptitude that the other judges voted straightway to re verse their former action. If this inci dent really occurred, we have here at least one example where no great harm could have attended the divulging of a
