Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/30

 The Green Bag

1O

superseding the Court of Common Pleas, to which, besides its original jurisdiction, appeals may be taken from trial jus

remove a duly appointed professor on the ground of heterodoxy without allow

tices,

municipal

ing the administrative board, namely,

courts, and in certain cases from the

the trustees, the right to be present at the trial and present arguments for his

police, district and

Probate Court. Comparatively few cases

to the right of a board of visitors to

out of the whole number tried are re ferred to the Supreme Judicial Court,

retention."

and only those involving doubtful ques

scope and limits of visitatorial power

tions of law, and while not a court of last

had never been deﬁned in America.

Previous to the Supreme

Court's decision in the Andover case the

resort, yet since its creation the Superior

Such boards are not common among us,

bench has home substantially the brunt and burden of the routine work of trials. Judge Bishop’s service covers a period

of twenty-two years, and it is estimated

yet they were well known in England during our Colonial period. In 1808 the Andover Board of Visitors was created in accordance with the wishes of the

that about forty-ﬁve hundred diﬁerent cases were tried before him. His deci

benefactors of the seminary" and the Associate Statutes of that year give to

sions uniformly were reached as a result of the same careful consideration and

this board the power “to admonish or

study which in earlier years character ized his work as an attorney and legis lator. The present generation of lawyers remember little of his former career; to them he is best known as a judge, con siderate of the opinions of counsel and uniformly courteous to the younger and less experienced members of the bar. Although careful of legal principles and procedure, his attitude was far from technical, his aim being to work out

substantial justice through lines laid down by law. Aside from his strictly judicial work, his opinion was many times requested by the Executive regard ing appointments and matters of policy

relating to the Superior bench, and sev eral times in his later years his name was suggested for promotion to the Supreme Judicial Court, to which, how ever, his advanced age presented a seri ous objection. In 1891 a cause came before the Su preme Judicial Court which very deeply concerned Judge Bishop, although stand ing entirely outside the scope of his regular court work. This was the so called Andover controversy, and related

remove him (a professor) for misbehavior heterodoxy, incapacity or neglect of the

duties of his oflice.”l To discover the legal interpretation of this passage Judge Bishop spent sev eral months abroad, including a con siderable time in research work at the Bodleian Library at Oxford,82 his studies

there being supplemented by further investigation after his return home. His work was of material assistance to coun sel in the presentation of arguments against the action of the visitors. The decision of the court proved entirely satisfactory to the trustees,“ and the former action of the visitors being de clared void, the accused professor was

continued in his position at the semi nary. The fallacy which misled the visitors "Two cases were tried as one: (1) Egbert C. Symthe v. Visitors of Andover Theological Seminary, an appeal from decision of this board to the Su reme Court, as provided by law, and (2) Bill in uity, Trustees of Phillips Academy v. Attorney General at al., for instructions as to validity of the decree of visitors, 154 Mass. 551. '0 Moses Brown and others. 3' Associate Statutes, Act. 20. '2 See Andover Review, vol. 16, no. xcvi, . 609, mention of Judge Bishop's examination of English statutes and cases. a Judge Bishop had long served as a trustee.