Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/29

 16

The Green Bag

secret, which took place, it is probable, only after the lapse of years. Instances are not unknown to the bar where a court has decided a case, and assigned to one of its number the preparation of the opinion; the judge has gone ahead with his task of setting out the reasons for the conclu sions agreed upon, only to discover after he has proceeded for some distance, that he finds it impossible logically to sup port the views which at the conference he together with the others had deemed controlling. The result has been a re consideration, and a reversal of a deci sion which at first had approved itself as just and sound. Such are the uncer tainties of the law, not easily explained to clients. That the Supreme Court of the United States in several instances has divided, five to four, upon the decision of im portant questions (chiefly those of a pub lic nature) has by no means escaped notice. The circumstance, however, calls for no special comment. While a nearer approach to unanimity is desir able, the record as it is serves to illus trate the truth that many a legal controversy presents a turning-point, where, whichever way the judgment goes, it remains that strong and con vincing argument can be adduced upon either side. The following bit of pleasantry is familiar to old practitioners, though it has been credited to more than one other judge than the true author, who was the late David K. Cartter, for many years Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. A man of large frame, his face pitted with small pox, Cartter had a slight impediment of speech, which he overcame in a moment by an explosive utterance. He was noted for a refreshing contempt of forms and technicalities, as well as for exhibi

tions of wit, that, to say the truth, were at times not over and above refined. He seldom looked into a law book, and never but once, so it is said, had he reduced an opinion to writing. Cartter's instinct for doing exact justice carried him by the quickest path to the real merits of a cause. His conceptions were usually sound—his reasoning forcible and logical. At an evening entertainment in Wash ington one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, coming up to Cartter, shook him by the hand and began to rally him on account of a decision which the Supreme Court had just announced reversing the court of the district. Chief Justice Cartter, re turning the greeting in a manner quite as hearty, made prompt disposition of his stammer by ejaculating: "All right, M—; the only advantage your court has over ours (aside from the salary) is that you fellows on the Hill have the last guess." There are two qualities which should combine in the man to make one a good judge,—first, a thorough knowledge of the law, and next a readiness in the dispatch of business. Common sense, that splendid quality in every walk of life, bears a special value when pos sessed by an occupant of the bench. The bar, with all its tendency to criti cise—a disposition not infrequently sharpened where counsel are smarting under a sense of unmerited defeat be cause of the action of the court,—is really tolerant and considerate in its estimate of judicial worth. Aware that all of us are fallible, the profession seeks to discover in the person of the judge respectable attainments. If it finds them, and sees likewise a temperament indicative of fairness and of an earnest desire to reach just results, the bar for the most part is perfectly satisfied.