Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/494

466 466 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. A chief justice of marked intellectual ability may leave an im- press for years upon the decisions of his court, even to the extent of peculiar views of his own that are shared by scarcely one of his brethren in other jurisdictions. There would seem to be no great difficulty, therefore, in accounting for the cause in a certain pro- portion of rulings where a difference of opinion displays itself in courts of different States. One community may be agricultural, another commercial, a third largely engaged in manufactures. In one State it happens that capital has accumulated, and the creditor class exercise power in shaping legislation; or they hold, not indeed unfairly, but by the mere fact of their presence, somewhat of the sympathies of the court. In another region most people are borrowers, and judges no less than juries become accustomed to look at a loan of money from the standpoint of the debtor. It does make a difference in the event of a trial whether it be held in a locaHty where institutions have been long estabhshed and conser- vative habits prevail, or in a new country, where the people are mostly young and active, are impatient of form, and quick to adopt new methods are full of modern ideas of progress. A practising lawyer imbibes freely of the sentiment that prevails among his neighbors. In fact, he has had a full share in its creation. No great wonder is it, then, that, when raised to the bench, the man himself is seen to have undergone little change in his habits of thought and modes of reasoning. The "personal equation," so to speak, in the daily routine of the court, forms an interesting and not unprofitable subject of study. There are secrets of the consultation room. They should be inviolably kept. All that suitors are entitled to is an announce- ment of the conclusion that has been reached, unless by the positive terms of the statute judges are required to file written opinions. In those jurisdictions where the statute goes on to prohibit the filing of a dissenting opinion, it is likely for that reason that fewer dissents occur. Were it permitted to enjoy a tolerably full knowl- edge of the methods by which decisions are arrived at, and obligation at the same time when the blank was printed, and by the same agency, has been recently, in full consideration, decided to be a mere scroll, and not a valid seal." One finds himself in hearty accord with Mr. Justice Grier, who, to the objection that the seal of a Circuit Court authenticating an acknowledgment was an impression stamped on paper, and not "on wax, wafer, or any other adhesive or tenacious sub- stance," remarks, " It is time that such objection to the validity of seals should cease." Pillow V. Roberts (1851), 13 Howard, 474.