labour, his prudence, and his upright and high character. These qualities, the exercise of which is a matter of ordinary and everyday life (if I may so express it), must form a name and reputation for the young advocate before important business gives him an opportunity of displaying his other qualities and talents. I will here conclude, sir, and I think I have said enough to give your son an idea of the profession which you are desirous that he should embrace. His way of thinking, which you have made known to me, must render him sensible of the advantages that it promises. Long studies, irksome details, and knotty discussions to which he must give himself up, to render himself capable of pursuing the profession of the law, and also in its actual exercise, are undoubtedly painful and disagreeable, but those pains appear to me to be abundantly compensated for by the obligation of being virtuous. ART. XII. THE CHIEF JUSTICES OF AMERICA. Sketches of the Lives and Judicial Services of the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. By George Van Santvoord. New York: Charles Scribner. 1854. T HE example set by Lord Campbell has been worthily followed by Mr. Van Santvoord; and we have now an interesting record of the lives of transantlantic chief justices, which, in addition to its immediate purpose of giving us their memoirs, throws much light on contemporary history. We rejoice, moreover, in this additional means of increasing our knowledge of American jurisprudence. We hail every means of augmenting a kindly sympathy between the legal profession in each country. The decisions of many of the American Courts, and the arguments which precede them, are in most respects equal to our own; and we intend to give notes of them much more frequently than we have hitherto done in the pages of this Magazine. The growth of jurisprudence in America has, like that of the mighty republic of which it forms an integral feature, been wonderfully rapid, and from small beginnings has matured itself in wisdom and strength with wonderful rapidity. At first, as was to be expected in the then turbulent infancy of the commonwealth, its earliest judges were among the number of its first senators, and were even among those distinguished in the field. Indeed, every departed judge had taken some marked part in the formation of the first fabric of government: and who so fit to mould the course of public justice as those who first gave it being and consistency. Among such men were Jay, Ellsworth, and Marshall. In the following sketch of their eventful and suggestive career, we are indebted not only to the very carefully written and able work before us, but to the abstract given of it in the pages of our clever contemporary the Law Reporter. John Jay was a federalist of the old school. He was not a member of the convention that adopted the constitution, but he was earnest in its support, and was the author of a few of the papers of the Federalist, the remainder and the largest part of which is from the pens of Hamilton and Madison. It was the influence of the federal party that secured the adoption of the constitution, with whatever tendency it possesses towards centralization, and towards strengthening the hands of the general government at the expense of those of the States. It is well for it that so much strength has been secured to this government as to make it effective for all practical purposes. It is perhaps quite as well that a strong democratic opposition, assuming the guardianship of State rights, prevented the ultra federalists from carrying their theories of centralization any farther. Hamilton was in favour of a senate and executive for life; and Jay, in a letter to John Adams, expressed his desire "to see the people of America become one nation in every respect; for, as to the separate legislatures, I would have them considered, with relation to the confederacy, in the same light in which counties stand to the state of which they are parts, viz., merely as districts, to facilitate the purposes of domestic order and good government." The same spirit is shown in his remarks, in delivering his opinion as Chief Justice in the Supreme Court of the United States, in the memorable case of Chisholm v. Georgia (2 Dallas, 472, 473), in which he seems to keep entirely out of sight the existence of sovereignty as appertaining to an individual State, and to consider the State of Delaware as of no higher dignity than the city of Philadelphia, merely because the former had no more inhabitants than the latter. The conclusion which the Court arrived at, was almost immediately overturned by an amendment of the Constitution. We make an extract from the work before us, to show how entirely Mr. Jay was possessed by a spirit of self-sacrifice so characteristic of the men of the revolution. He had been appointed in 1779, envoy to Spain, for the purpose of endeavouring to obtain a loan from the Spanish court. "In this emergency, Congress took an extraordinary step which nothing but desperation could have prompted. Without the slightest surmise of what might be Jay's reception or prospects of success in Spain, nay, without even apprising him of the step taken, it was resolved to draw upon him bills to the amount of half a million payable in six months. The Spanish Government, after authorizing the acceptance of these bills to the amount of a few thousand dollars, informed Mr. Jay that no more would be paid unless America agreed to furnish ships of war as an equivalent, or cede to Spain the sole right of navigating the Mississippi, but offered to guaranty the payment of 150,000 dollars in three years, if Mr. Jay could effect such a loan. The conditions imposed by Spain were rejected; Jay attempted to effect the loan, but failed. In this emergency, he resolved upon a step of extraordinary boldness-it might be called rashness, a step, however, not hastily determined on, but one which his calm judgment dictated and his reason approved. Without any present prospect of meeting these demands as they fell due, but with unshaken confidence in himself, his country and its cause, he resolved to accept all bills presented to him at his own risk.”—p. 25. He persisted in this resolution. The bills thus accepted by him were not met, though he was soon relieved from his embarrassment through the agency of Dr. Franklin. The most important single event in the life of Mr. Jay, was his negotiation of the treaty of 1794, with this country. The biographer very reasonably doubts whether the terms of this treaty might not have been more favourable, had it not been for the ill-concealed, or rather the plainly manifested anxiety of Mr. Jay to procure a treaty of some sort with us. At this day we can hardly wonder at the disfavour with which this treaty was received in the United States. At length these grievances gave occasion to the war of 1812. We cannot refrain from making one more extract in illustration of the estimate then made of public men, and which might well be applied to our own time. "Of the proceedings of this Congress of 1774, it is not necessary now to speak. It was composed of fifty-five members. Among them were the distinguished orators from Virginia, Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee. The debate was opened by Mr. Henry in a speech of matchless power and eloquence-a vivid and glowing description of which has been drawn by the graphic pen of Mr. Wirt. Richard Henry Lee followed, and charmed with his graceful eloquence an audience that had been spell-bound by the more potent declamation of his colleague. As he closed, Mr. Chase, à delegate from Maryland, whispered into the ear of one of his colleagues, we may as well go home; we cannot legislate with these men.' The whole assembly seemed to acknowledge their superiority. Lee was made chairman of the committee to prepare the address to the people of Great Britain; and Henry of the committee to prepare the address to the king. It soon became apparent, however, that their superiority consisted in powers of eloquence alone. The address of Lee fell far short of the high expectations that had been raised its reading disappointed the whole assembly. After all,' remarked Mr. Chase, with that quick perception and ready boldness which so strongly characterized his mind, they are but men, and very common men, too."2 After some faint and equivocal compliments, the address was laid on the table, and Gov. Livingston and John Jay were appointed upon the committee."-p. 9. : The successor of Mr. Jay in the office of chief justice, was John Rutledge of South Carolina. He was a member of a family distinguished by their ability and their zeal in the revolution. He held the most important posts in his native State, and in the old Congress. He was appointed by Washington during the recess of Congress. 1 Professor Tucker remarks in his Life of Jefferson, that though Henry and Lee bore the palm for eloquence in debate, yet "for that of the pen, the first place must unquestionably be awarded to Mr. Jay of New York." 2 Wirt's Life of Patrick Henry. Mainly owing to his having actively opposed the ratification of Jay's treaty, his nomination was not confirmed by the senate, and he retired from the bench after presiding during a single term, when he delivered opinions in only two cases, and very briefly on both. He soon after declined in health, ultimately became insane, and in the year 1800 he died. The case of Talbot v. Janson, 3 Dallas, 133, is however noteworthy as being the first case in the Supreme Court where the right of a citizen to expatriate himself was made the subject of discussion. After the rejection of Rutledge, Washington nominated Mr. Justice Cushing, the senior judge of the Supreme Court for the vacant office, and his nomination was at once confirmed. But he declined it, preferring to remain in the position he then held. Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, was then nominated and confirmed. Mr. Ellsworth was in Congress in 1778, and subsequently until 1782, which was his last year of service, and took an active part in the proceedings of that body. He was appointed to judicial office in his native state, and was a member of the convention which adopted the constitution. He was very active and efficient in procuring the adoption of that principle in the constitution which gives to each state an equal representation in the senate. He was opposed to the tendencies towards centralization, and a strong advocate of the rights of the states. He was also a member of the Connecticut convention for ratifying the constitution, and one of the first United States' senators from Connecticut, and was, as his biographer says, entitled to the chief paternity of the Judiciary Act of 1789. He was a supporter of Jay's treaty, and consequently voted against the confirmation of his predecessor, Rutledge, though no one has ever ventured to impugn his motives in so doing. He remained in the senate until he was transferred to the bench as chief justice, in 1796. The opinions of Chief Justice Ellsworth are few and brief, and hardly afford materials from which we can infer his character as a judge. We can only pause to notice the case of Williams, occurring on the circuit for the Connecticut district, when the chief justice denied the right of a citizen to expa |