Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 07.pdf/603

560 c. 82, § II. At the same session he advocated, as member of the judiciary committee, giving the court full equity powers, which it now has (R. S., c. 77, § 6, clause xi). At the following session in 1875, he carried through the Senate a bill to abolish imprisonment for debt. The bill was defeated in the House, where it was presumed that so humane legislation would be most popular, but ten years later imprisonment for debt was abolished almost without opposition. His favorite measure was thus vindicated, — he then being, perhaps, a little in advance of the times. When chairman of the Senate judiciary committee in 1881, he was largely instrumental in framing and carrying through the Legislature the Equity Procedure Act, to make proceedings in equity more simple, speedy and effective. The great change, found in R. S., c. 77, § 10 et seq., was this : Under the old system each justice of the court was only a master in chancery, and the only chancellor was the law court. Under the new system each justice is a chancellor, and can make final decrees. The law court thus becomes only a court of appeals. The new Chancery Rules adopted by the court at the May Term, in 1890, to carry into effect this new statute with a subsequent revision, were framed by Mr. Justice Emery, and his associate Mr. Justice Haskell. During his term of office as attorney-general he conducted the prosecution of two important and celebrated cases, one civil and the other criminal. The first is a railroad tax case under the name of State v. Maine Central R. R. Co., reported in 66 Maine, 488. A statute imposing a state tax on railroad franchises had been passed, and it was resisted by the older railroads. He brought suit against the Maine Central in the State Court to recover the tax assessed upon the company, and the action was sustained by the court in an elaborate opinion by Chief-Justice Appleton, already alluded to in the sketch of that judge, ante, p. 510, as one of his leading opinions. The case was removed by the railroad company on writ of error to the United States Supreme Court, which court also sustained the action and the claim of the State. It is reported in 96 U. S. 499, The statute was a new one, and the case a leading case. Attorney-General Emery was the pioneer counsel. The other case, the trial of Edward M. Smith at Ellsworth, for murder, before Peters, J., was a remarkable one. The murder was a shocking tragedy, and the whole community was interested in the trial, which lasted fourteen days, the evidence being wholly circumstantial and consisting of a large number of circumstances of great variety.

The crime was committed in a house occupied by Mr. Trim, his daughter, and a little grand-daughter, in a country district, in Bucksport. The house was discovered on fire in the early hours of the morning, and was burned to the ground. It was found that Mr. Trim and his daughter had been murdered, and the house fired to burn their bodies, thus concealing, for a time, the real cause of their death. The defendant was convicted after an able and almost indomitable defense. The Attorney-General was highly commended for his prosecution of the case in behalf of the State.

It will thus be seen that Judge Emery went upon the bench well fitted by his education, practice and experience to make an honorable career for himself as well as render good service to the State. His ambition lay in this direction, and he brought with him, besides, a disposition for unremitting labor so necessary to the judicial office. His ideal of the judicial functions and responsibilities is high and dignified. Himself personally polite and a lover of correct deportment, he encourages their practice by others, since politeness and good deportment render the administration of law easier, enhance its usefulness, and add weight and influence to the respect that is due to the court. He believes the law grows, and with it should