with more enjoyment, for the student at every step knows afterwards of his whereabouts with relation to the whole, and is in no danger of being bewildered or confounded by the apprehension of interminable labor or an inexhaustible labyrinth. So it is with the law. Blackstone, therefore, thoroughly understood, I direct the attention of the students in the next place to the great sources from which all the laws of civilized countries are derived, and take them through the following course, which is enlarged or contracted in proportion to the time they have to bestow on their preparatory studies: 1st. The law of nature and nations, Rutherford; and, if there be time, Grotius and Vattel. 2d. The Roman Civil Law, Brown's Lectures; and, if time, the references in the Corpus Juris Civilis, as they are made by Brown and Huber's prelections. 3d. The Common Law, Bacon's Abridgment, as the textbooks, read with references. 4th. The Statute Law and State Decisions of the residence and contemplated place of practice of the student. This course, particularly the latter part of it, should be combined with a regular attendance on the rules of court in some well-kept clerk's office, with the advantage of drawing declarations and pleadings in the office of some regular and extensive practitioner, with the study of Chitty's Pleadings and Espinasse's Nisi Prius, which should be familiar to the student.

I have said nothing of historical studies, belles-lettres, composition, reciting paragraphs from poets, and debating, though I deem them all essential in the preparation of an accomplished advocate. Regular days should be set for composition, and the compositions should be submitted to the best critic of whom you can make a friend. You should inflame your emulation by the frequent study of Cicero's Orator, and of his Brutus above all, and imagine yourself to belong to that splendid galaxy of Roman orators which he there displays. Quintilian's Institutes, too, should be thoroughly studied, and the dialogue de causis corruptæ eloquentiæ, the work, I believe, of the same author, but which has been incorrectly published with the works of Tacitus. The letters of Pliny, the younger, especially those to Tacitus, with the orations of Demosthenes, Cicero, Er

skine and Lord Chatham. I do not mean that these should be read merely, but that they should be studied and analyzed according to the model which Mr. Blair has furnished for Cicero's Action for Cluentius.

These exercises, with a debating society, under the direction of an experienced man of vigorous intellect and correct taste, accompanying your law course, will diversify your employments most agreeably and usefully, and recreate and cheer you on your ascent up the arduous steep which leads to the temple of the goddess you so properly worship.

I beg you to excuse this scrawl, the effect of haste, and believe me, with warmest wishes for your success, Your obedient servant,

WILLIAM WIRT.

Washington, February 18, 1823.

To Thomas J. Johnston, Esq.

Sir: Before I left home I received yours of the 21st of November, in which you very flatteringly ask my opinions on some subjects connected with professional studies. It is unfortunate for you, my friend, that you are your own solicitor in this cause, since your manner of asking for that which you say you need shows that you do not need it. It is quite obvious that you have both employed your own thoughts and had the benefit of those of others upon the subjects about which you write. I shall only venture to enclose you a copy of a paper exhibiting a course of study which has been generally pursued by students under my care. It is substantially a good course, and if it shall suggest anything useful to you I should be glad. [The list here referred to by Mr. Webster has unfortunately been lost.] Our profession, my friend, is a noble profession, and our country more than all others favorable to its respectability and advancement. Free institutions afford the atmosphere and aliment for good lawyers, and good lawyers have proved themselves, in all times and countries, the most strenuous as well as the most intelligent supporters of free institutions. Let us all endeavor to requite our country for the blessings she bestows on us.

Washington, March 20, 1826.

Dear Sir: It at all times affords me much pleasure to render any aid to youths seeking information and improvement, and I only regret my incompetency to advise your young friend on a general course of reading on law and jurisprudence.

I remained only two years at the bar, and have not read law books in twenty-five years, so that I am far in the rear of the profession as it now stands. But I would say to your young friend, study attentively all the best elementary treatises, be assiduous in his attendance in court, and attentive to the routine of office. He will of course make himself master of the practice laws of the state where he intends to practise. But no previous attention can supersede the necessity of the minutest and closest attention to the

cases he may undertake, after he is admitted to practise, both as to the facts and law. On this point the success of a lawyer mainly depends. The study of particular cases is better calculated than anything else to give full and accurate legal knowledge.

As to history, he will, of course, study all the ancient classics, to be followed by Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire to which the history of England-and that of our own. country-ought to succeed. Both ought not only to be read but studied. Add to these some good general history, and a foundation will be laid which may be built on from time to time by reading at leisure the histories of the more celebrated states of modern times. With respect, I am,

J. C. CALHOUN.

Thos. J. Johnston, Esq.

WASHINGTON took his first oath

WAS

of office as President of the United States before the first Chancellor of New York; the Supreme Court not being in existence at that time. Immediately after he had signed, as President, the Judiciary Act creating the Supreme Court, he sent to Congress his first nominations for the bench (which according to the act was to consist of a Chief Justice and five Associates): John Jay, Chief Justice; John Rutledge, James Wilson, William Cushing, Robert H. Harrison, and John Blair, Associates. Colonel Harrison declined the appointment, preferring to accept the post of Chancellor of, Maryland, which was offered him a few days later. His place was filled by the appointment of James Iredell.

Harrison's light regard for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme

Court was rather indicative of the lack of enthusiasm with which that institution was regarded in its early days. Although vested with powers which make it, as pronounced by Sir Henry Maine, "a virtually unique creation," "an institution without a prototype in history," according to Hannis Taylor, and a body from which, according to the colored doorkeeper, no appeal would lie except to "Gord Almighty," the Supreme Court was more or less without honor in the country and generation which established it. When Jay, without his knowledge, was a second time nominated and confirmed as Chief Justice (to succeed Ellsworth), he declined the appointment in the following words:

"I left the bench perfectly convinced that under a system so defective it would not obtain the energy, weight, and dignity which was essential to its affording

due support to the national government, nor acquire the confidence and respect which, as the last resort of the justice of the nation, it should possess."

Jay did not see it inconsistent with his duties as Chief Justice to accept the appointment of Commissioner to England, and he only resigned his position on the bench after he had been elected Governor of New York. Ellsworth, also, was appointed by President Adams as Commissioner to France while still holding his position as Chief Justice, and he did not resign his seat until after his return and his retirement to private life.

It is interesting to note the one instance in which, contrary to the popularly accepted tradition, a Chief Justice was selected from the body of the court. After the retirement of Jay, John Rutledge, at one time Governor of South Carolina, was appointed by Washington to the Chief Justiceship. Before the Senate had confirmed this choice, Rutledge showed signs of mental derange

ment which made his confirmation impossible. Washington then selected William Cushing, the senior Associate Justice. This appointment was confirmed by the Senate, but Cushing held the position for a week only, resigning before holding a session of court on the plea that he preferred to retain his original position as an Associate Justice.

The Supreme Court first convened in New York City, then the seat of government, on Monday, February 1, 1790. There were present Chief Justice Jay and Associate Justices Cushing and Wil

son.

Four being necessary to constitute a quorum, the court adjourned to the following day, when the quorum was completed by the arrival of Justice Blair. The court was then formally organized, but its official business consisted merely of adopting rules and a seal. There

were no cases on the docket, and the court adjourned to August 1st. Indeed, for some time the docket of the Supreme Court was not heavy. From 1790 to 1800 there were only six cases decided which involved questions of constitutional law. When Marshall took his place on the Supreme Bench, February 4, 1801, he found but ten cases waiting adjudication. That date, marking the accession of Marshall, marks also the first session of the Supreme Court to be held in Washington.

This

But, if the Supreme Court was not taken very seriously at first, the powers that were inherent in the institution soon became sufficiently obvious to cause alarm to the states' rights men. grew as they saw the powerful influence of Marshall and Story thrown to the strengthening of the federal government. "The judiciary of the United States," Jefferson wrote in 1820, "is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine the

foundations of our confederate fabric.” Jefferson even proposed that future appointments of judges should be for a term of four or six years, and that they

should be removable, by the President and Senate, in order to keep their judicial conduct under review and force the court into harmony with the administration. If this suggestion had been carried out, the court would to-day hold a very different position from the unique one which it now occupies.

It is the only court in the world which has the power to annul the legislation of its country. As the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, it has the power to review acts of Congress, and to declare that such acts as in its judgment are not in harmony with that instrument, are not law. This authority was recognized as inherent in the Ameri

can courts established prior to the Constitutional Convention, it is true; but it is an authority which is unknown to the courts of Europe.

Under the Articles of Confederation there had been no separate judiciary, and this was felt to be one of the vital defects of the Confederation. In framing the Constitution, the Convention recognized the advisability of dividing the powers of the government among three separate branches-the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The Convention met May 14, 1787. On May On May 29th, Randolph, of Virginia, presented his plan of a federal government; another plan was presented the same day by Charles Pinckney; Paterson, of New Jersey, presented a plan on June 15th, embodying certain features desired by the smaller states; and on June 18th a fourth plan was submitted by Alexander Hamilton.

All four plans provided for a separate judiciary, and they were not widely divergent, although there were differences of opinion regarding the method of appointment of the judges, the power which should be given to the Supreme Court over legislative acts of a state, and the proper power to be given the national judiciary over acts of the national Legislature. The various articles were debated for several months, but by September 8th a final agreement had been reached, and the articles were referred to a Committee on Style for revision. By September 17th the Constitution was signed, and the Convention adjourned.

When the Constitution was submitted to the various state conventions for ratification, the articles pertaining to the judiciary were challenged, particularly by Patrick Henry; but they were finally

ratified without alteration or amendment. The first Congress, convened in 1789, passed the Judiciary Act, setting forth in detail the organization of the judicial machinery of the country. This elaborate and carefully drawn act was chiefly the work of Oliver Ellsworth, afterwards serving as the second Chief Justice of the United States. The skill with which the needs of the future were foreseen and the wisdom with which the different parts of the plan were adapted to each other has excited more profound admiration with each successive test of the years. To the organization of the national judiciary is now generally accorded much of the credit for the success of our experiment in government; and yet, when it was first presented for the consideration of the House, Livermore, of New Hampshire, could say of the act:

"For my part, I contemplate with horror the effects of the plan. I think I see a foundation laid for discord, civil war, and all its concomitants. To avert these evils I hope the House will reject the proposed system."

Marshall showed what power had been placed in the hands of the judiciary, and what power it could exercise; but the anxieties which the anticipation of such exercise of power had caused have happily never been justified. While the decisions of the court have undoubtedly been colored at times by the political affiliations of the judges, they have never ceased to be, in the true sense of the word, judicial. The high trust that has been reposed in this body of men has never been betrayed. And as to the honor which crowns the bench, there are probably few lawyers in the country who would not rather be Chief Justice than President.