Littleton's reference to a "reading" which he had heard on the statute of Westminster 2,

"it is to be observed of what authority antient lectures or readings upon statutes were, for they had five excellent qualities. First, they declared what the common law was before the making of the statute as it here appeareth. Secondly, they opened the true sense and meaning of the statute. Thirdly, their cases were brief, having, at the most, one point at the common law and another upon the statute. Fourthly, plain and perspicuous, for then the honor of the reader was to excel others in authorities, arguments and reasons for proofs of his opinion, and for the confutation of the objections against it. Fifthly, they read, to suppresse subtile inventions to creepe out of the statute. But now readings have lost their said former qualities, have lost also their former authorities: for now the cases are long, obscure, and intricate, full of new conceits, like rather to riddles than lectures, which when they are opened they vanish like smoke, and the readings are like lapwings, who seeme to be nearest their nests when they are the farthest away from them, and all their studie is to find nice evasions out of the statute."

We asked, of course, that the Court should give the ancient reading to the statute, and it did.

McMurtrie told me a long time afterwards that he had never had a doubt about the strength of his case before the decision, but that he was convinced he was wrong. Candor was one of his great characteristics. He was always extremely positive at first, but when satisfied of his error he did not hesitate to say so. He once told me that "there was no man in the community who was more misunderstood" than he; that the common idea that he was self-opinionated and conceited was a very great mistake. "There is no one," he said, "who has less confidence in himself than I have." It was a surprise to me.

He had rather a poor opinion of the judiciary of this country. Once in speaking of a recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, upon some question of

equity jurisdiction, which he did not at all approve of, he said: "None of these fellows know anything about equity. Well, maybe Joe Bradley does, but-" He did not finish the sentence, so it is impossible to know to what extent the knowledge of Mr. Justice Bradley was qualified.

Judge Agnew, who succeeded Judge Lowrie in 1863, was one of the judges who participated in the decision of Shollenberger vs. Brinton, sustaining the constitutionality of the act of Congress authorizing the issue of notes by the United States and making them a legal tender. Each of the five judges delivered an opinion, three being in favor of the constitutionality of the act, and two holding the contrary view. One of those constituting the majority was somewhat noted for being able to reach conclusions by a process of reasoning which, from the premises, the ordinary mind was unable to follow. After the decision in Shollenberger vs. Brinton, a young lawyer, now one of the most eminent members of the bar, said to me: "Have you read the opinion of Judge ? It is about this: 'By means of the issue of these notes the Government has been able to equip a large army and suppress an inhuman rebellion; a rebellion which produced a monster like Jefferson Davis; which treated its prisoners with the greatest cruelty, and which finally culminated in the assassination of our late President, the lamented Mr. Lincoln. For these reasons I am of opinion that the act of Congress is constitutional.' There is but one writer," he added, “who can equal this—Artemus Ward. In his lecture on milk he says: "There are four seasons-spring, summer, fall and winter. Some prefer summer and some prefer winter, but as for me-give me liberty or give me death!'"

Perhaps the illustration was somewhat exaggerated. The question was one upon which the profession, on and off the bench, was much divided, and a decision not in accordance with the views of the man who criticises it is apt to be thought light of. For example, read what Mr. Binney says in Leaders of the Old Bar upon Judge Gibson's opinion in Lancaster vs. Dolan, 1 Rawle, 231.

GEORGE M. WHARTON

by

HENRY E. BUSCH

Having been a student in the office of the late George M. Wharton, I have been asked to write a brief "sketch of Mr. Wharton's methods of teaching and give some account of him as a man and lawyer."

George Mifflin Wharton, the son of William Fishbourne Wharton, was born in Philadelphia, December 20, 1806. He was a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and studied law with James C. Biddle. He was admitted to the bar September 8, 1827. My acquaintance with Mr. Wharton began upon my entering his office as a student, in November, 1855, and I remained with him as his assistant to the time of his death, February 5, 1870.

During this period twenty-five young men entered as students in his office. Among those who became prominent in after life were Thomas Bradford Dwight, a Judge of the Orphans' Court; George Inman Riché, President of the Faculty of the Central High School; Henry Morton, President of the Stevens Institute at Hoboken; L. C. Cleeman, Assistant Trust Officer of the Pennsylvania Company for Insurances on Lives, etc., and Sussex D. Davis, a Register in Bankruptcy.

Mr. Wharton directed the course of law reading which he wished the student to pursue, and also suggested and advised such collateral reading and studies in connection with the law course as he deemed requisite for each student. He did not hold regular examinations, as was the custom of some preceptors, but he did have an occasional quiz and frequently held evening meetings of the students, when he would talk to them upon some subject in which they were interested at the time, and especially upon matters of practice.

There were no typewriters in those days and he disliked press copies, so that all his professional correspondence of which he thought it needful to preserve copies, he had copied by his students.

As a rule, Mr. Wharton drafted his pleadings, paperbooks and other documents himself, occasionally dictating a paper, and, after correcting and revising these drafts, if they were not to be printed, he would require his students to make fair copies of them for filing or serving upon opposite counsel. There were times when a great deal of this work was required of the office force, but Mr. Wharton believed that it was of great practical value to the student in teaching him the form, style and other requirements of such papers.

Mr. Wharton's penmanship was exceedingly neat and legible, and the papers prepared by him were indicative of his quiet and careful manner and were models for the scrivener.

Neatness and order were characteristic of Mr. Wharton and his surroundings. There were no confused piles of papers on his table to be turned and overturned in searching for a needed document. The papers in each case were carefully folded, endorsed, tied in bundles and so placed as to be easily accessible at any time. Some of the modern office appliances would have greatly delighted him.

So far as the force of example could go the student could have had no better school.

Mr. Wharton possessed an agreeable manner, a good temper and an unblemished personal character. He was a thorough Christian gentleman, a devout member of the Episcopal Church, in which he was held in great respect, and in the conventions of the Church his opinions and counsel had much weight. He was for several years a Trustee of the University of Pennsylvania. He was also greatly interested in the Public School system, and was for a long time a member of the Board of Controllers and of the High School ComImittee. He was for a time President of the Select Council

of the City of Philadelphia, and also served a term as United States District Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

he

Mr. Wharton had a profound knowledge of the law; he possessed a cultivated mind and a sound judgment; acquired a large general practice, and was an acknowledged leader of the bar.

As a counselor he was safe, prudent, wise and upright. His literary work comprised annotations to an edition of East's Reports and one or two pamphlets in the celebrated Habeas Corpus series.

His courteous demeanor, his quiet manner and pleasant voice, his clear and concise statement of the facts of a case, as well as of the principles involved in it, gave to his arguments great power.

Occasional interruptions whilst addressing the court or a jury never seemed to ruffle his temper or confuse his thoughts, but he would quietly resume the course of his argument as if nothing had occurred.

His industry was untiring, he worked without ceasing, the business of his clients was ever upon his mind. He seldom, if he ever, took a real vacation. He had a summer residence a few miles from the city, whence he would make almost daily visits to town. Sometimes he would go to the seaside, but never too far away to prevent an occasional visit to his office, and if he went with his family on a pleasure trip, he insisted upon having frequent reports concerning his office affairs, and was constantly giving instructions or inquiring about some matter that had meanwhile occurred to him.

Is it any wonder that under this strain he eventually succumbed, and at last truly entered into rest at the age of sixty-three?

Feelingly, we can echo the remark of the late Chief Justice Thompson, who, in alluding to the death of Mr. Wharton, exclaimed: "Alas! that such a man should die before his day of usefulness was entirely over."