The Editor's Bag
599
is not composed of the sort of judges whose favorite pastime is to revamp the
whether as special counsel or in any other capacity, the outcome can hardly fail
Constitution.
to show the futility of their intervention
So far as the procedure adopted by the Conference was concerned, we agree with our esteemed contemporary, the New York Law Journal, that “the func
tion of the Supreme Court of the United States as a determiner and settler of important questions of law far exceeds in importance its character as an arbi trator of particular controversies.”
in matters wherein their services are
superfluous. AN AWKWARD QUESTION RATHER
good
story
of
inept
advocacy in Mr. Birrell's Life of Frank Lockwood, is pointed out by Law Notes of London. Once in the Court of Chancery a wit
Consequently, if the states desire a
hearing in the Supreme Court in a con troversy to which they are not a party, but by which they may be indirectly
afiected, it may be right in theory to accord them the right to appear, on complying with certain formalities neces
ness was asked in cross-examination by an eminent Chancery leader whether it
was true that he had been convicted of perjury. The witness owned the soft im peachment, and the cross-examining counsel very properly sat down.
sary to the dignity of the Court. There
Then it became the duty of an equally
is no precedent for such an intervention, and what formalities the etiquette of
eminent Chancery Q.C. to re-examine. “Yes," said he, “it is true you have been convicted of perjury. But tell me: Have
the Court might require to be observed may be problematic. But the vote instructing representatives of the Con ference to present their case, lacking the usual deference shown our highest tribu nal, there having not even been a
direction to pursue this action "by leave of the Court," undeniably failed
to conform to the proprieties which should govern the interrelations judiciary and executive.
of
We find it very hard to treat the vote as one of the sort which any deliberative
body of publicists might have passed. Minnesota is amply able to defend her own litigation, and a Conference of Governors moved by a proper re spect for the ability and fairness of the Supreme Court would have been con tent with the more authoritative and
dignified method of voicing its sentiment in an appropriate resolution. Should the Supreme Court consent to hear the rep
resentatives of the House of Governors in the arguments of any of the rate cases,
you not on many other occasions been accused of perjury and been acquitted?" A LAY JUDGE'S
CHARGE
N
THE early history of New Hampshire the judiciary consisted of three judges of whom one was a lawyer and the other two were selected from the laity for their recognized honesty and common sense. One of these lay judges, Dudley, was pro nounced by that eminent lawyer, Theo philus Parsons, whose circuit in those days included New England, one of
the best judges before whom he had ever tried a case.
At Raymond, N. H.,
upon his tombstone
may be
found
this inscription :— HON. JOHN DUDLEY DIED MAY 21. 1805 AGE 80 HERE LIES AN HONEST MAN
We are indebted to Dudley Roberts, Esq., of Waltham, Mass, for a copy of the following charge of Judge Dudley
