Law"; and the theologico-legal aspect is displayed by Sydney Smith, in his sermon on "The Lawyer that tempted Christ." That member of the profession who receives the spirit of these teachings into his heart, and acts accordingly, will be worthy of his high vocation while he lives, and to use the words of old Roger, "When Death calls him to the Bar of Heaven by a Habeas Corpus cum Causa he will find his Judge his Advocate, nonsuit the Devil, obtain a Liberate from all his infirmities, and continue still one of the Long Robe in Glory."

Disdaining the advantage of Brougham's eccentric theory, and trying Messrs. Field and Shearman by the severer standard of the better men whose works we have cited, what have they done to merit reproach? or wherein have they come short of their duty in all this difficult business? The only semblance of a specific accusation is, not that they took up an unjust cause, but that they were retained by a bad client. Mr. Adams thinks it very sensible and proper to make a grave exhibition of this charge, and to circulate it far and wide over the world; therefore (and only therefore) we are not permitted to say in plain terms that it is most absurd and wicked.

If no counselor can be concerned for Fisk and Gould in any case whatever without becoming infamous, it follows that no court can, without incurring a similar penalty, extend the protection of the law to their plainest rights. They are mere outlaws; they may be slandered, swindled, robbed with impunity, "and it shall come to pass that whosoever findeth them shall slay them."* If this be consistent with the genius of our institutions, we have misapprehended those provisions of the fundamental law which declare that the courts are open to all men, and that all shall have a fair trial with counsel to assist them in getting justice.

This style of attack upon Mr. Field looks to us like a very unmistakable tribute to his good fame. The character of a lawyer must be more than commonly spotless when his enemies have no material for defaming him except what they get by raking about among the faults and follies of his clients. But that society is a very unsafe one to live in whose sense of justice will permit one man to be hunted down merely because the wolf's head has been placed on another. The reputation of lawyers-which is the life of their lives-will be extremely precarious, however virtuous their own acts may have been, if the concentrated odium of all their clients' sins can be cast upon themselves.

The Church party-that is to say, the proprietors of the Albany and Susquehanna Railroad-had a cause as just, legal, and fair as any court ever saw. They had been remorsely plundered by a gang of reckless knaves, who made no secret of their intentions to repeat the robbery in the same as well as in other forms. Messrs. Field and

*This was written and in the hands of the printers before the assassination of Colonel Fisk.-ED.

Shearman accepted the retainer of these injured parties, and gave them the promise of such redress and protection as they could legally obtain for them. Now it is charged that this engagement to procure justice by legal means, in a perfectly upright case, was a prostitution by Messrs. Field and Shearman of their talents and influence, because one or two of the parties thus injured are supposed to have been previously engaged in other transactions in which they were themselves to blame. Whether this be true or false, it furnished no reason to Messrs. Field and Shearman for rejecting the case on moral grounds. If the cause, though just, was likely to become unpopular because Fisk and Gould were in it, that was an additional reason for taking it. Mere public clamor will not deter any honorable man from the performance of a duty; on the contrary, he is excited to higher efforts when "the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing."

That they behaved with scrupulous uprightness in the progress of the cause, and used no unfair means to reach the ends of justice, is a proposition which will not be denied unless by some who think that it is wrong in all circumstances to take out an ex parte injunction. Certainly the law which allows this mode of proceeding is entitled to no commendation. But while it is in full force it may be used for a proper purpose with a safe conscience. Every man is justified in defending the right against the wrong with such weapons as the law puts into his hands. Even L'Estrange's "Honest Lawyer," rigid as he is, "uses the nice snapperadoes of practice, in a defensive way, to countermine the plots of knavery, though he had rather be dumb than suffer his tongue to pimp for injustice, or club his parts to bolster up a cheat with the legerdemain of law-craft."

But then it may be said that Mr. Field, being the author of the Code, is responsible for the law itself, and for the mischief it produces in other hands as well as his own. The fact may be assumed too hastily. He is not the author, or supporter, or approver of that system which we have called the Code in this paper. Whenever we have said "Code," we meant the New York system of jurisprudence, a very small part of which was furnished by him. A piece of his work was taken and joined on the half-demolished ruins of the common law, and afterward there were added to both the outrageous provisions which have made such confusion and conflict in the jurisdiction of the courts. That he meant well by what he did has never, we believe, been doubted. If he erred, his error was shared by thousands of the best men and truest philanthropists in Europe and America; and the faith of many in "law reform," like that of Joanna Southcote's disciples in their "Shiloh," is robust enough to live on under all the discouragement of past failures. Let us hope that the pure benevolence of their efforts will meet its reward in the higher success of a far better reform, which may restore us to the golden age of the law.

The Code actually prepared by Mr. Field and the commission which he headed has not had a trial in New York. When a portion of it was torn from its context and united with a mutilated part of the common law, the symmetry of both was destroyed, and confusion became unavoidable. The Legislature, when they abolished the old forms of pleading, rejected the new forms with which Mr. Field proposed to supply their place; these latter were scientific and logical, and would have saved much of the evil which has happened for want of them. It was the experiment, which has always failed, of putting new wine into old bottles. In some of the Western States they have tried the Code pure and simple, and very wise men are animated with the hope of its complete success. Mr. Field has no lack of adherents at home and abroad, who believe in the Code apparently on the principle of that Roman citizen who said he would rather be wrong with Cato than right with all the rest of the world. No doubt Mr. Field is a better man than Cato ever was; but we are not "ravished with the whistling of a name," and therefore we say to all Americans who are still permitted to enjoy the blessing of the common law, that they should watch over that inheritance faithfully, and show no quarter to codifiers. Let them lay to their hearts the solemn warning of the Hebrew prophet: "Walk in the old paths; stand upon the ancient ways; observe them well, and be ye not given unto change."

J. S. BLACK.

THE CHARACTER OF MR. SEWARD.-REPLY TO C. F. ADAMS, SR.

To the Hon. Charles Francis Adams:

AMONG a certain class of the American people a desire prevails that your "Memorial Address" on the late William H. Seward should receive a fuller examination than Mr. Welles has given it. His papers are very strong and clear; but there are certain fundamental questions which he does not touch, and which the friends of constitutional government can not allow to be "washed in Lethe and forgotten." In my attempt to supply some of his omissions, I address you directly, because in that form I can best express my great respect for you while I try to expose the errors which I think I have detected in your address.

Your reputation for stainless integrity, for great talents, and for liberal principles, gives your words almost the authority of an oracle. There is, perhaps, no man in this country whose naked assertion would go further than yours, at home or abroad. If you have pronounced an erroneous judgment on an important matter, it should be subjected to a free revision.

This is an important matter. Mr. Seward was so connected with the greatest events of the last twenty years, that a misrepresentation of his life is a falsification of public history. Besides, he differed so widely from all his predecessors and many of his contemporaries, that unqualified approval of him implies the severest condemnation of them. Your own consciousness of this is betrayed in your harsh denunciations of those who committed no crime but that of being opposed by him. If Mr. Seward was not a wise and virtuous man-if he was unfaithful to his public duties-if his policy tended to the corruption of morals and the consequent destruction of popular libertyif he was not true to the Constitution and laws which he often swore to execute then you have done a most pernicious wrong in holding him up as an example for others to follow.

I hope I have made a sufficient apology for the presumption of which I seem to be guilty in declaring that your address is full of mistakes.

Your comparison of Mr. Seward to Pericles was rash and extravagant. A little reflection and another reading of Plutarch will satisfy you that the New York politician bore not the slightest resemblance to the illustrious Athenian whose transcendent genius as a military commander, orator, scholar, philosopher, lawgiver, judge, and jurist brought the greatest people of the earth to the summit of their glory in arms, in arts, and in literature. The difference could not be greater. As men they had something in common-organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions-and each was remarkable in his way; but everything that distinguished them from the rest of the world equally distinguished them from one another. They were alike in no characteristic quality, moral or mental. There is not one parallel passage in their history. A true picture of Mr. Seward's life will not show a single feature which can be recognized even as a miniature likeness of any trait in that of Pericles.

It is easy to eulogize a man by appropriating to him the qualities of another whom history has already consecrated to the admiration of mankind. This cheap and compendious mode of dealing with the fame of an ancient hero or sage, by transferring it in bulk to a modern favorite, is often resorted to, and almost always fails of its purpose. Mr. Lincoln was said by his admirers to be a reproduction of Socrates; Robespierre was the Aristides of the French Assembly, and Klootz was Anacharsis. Congress and the State Legislatures are full of Catos. We have them among the directors of the Crédit Mobilier. I have heard Mr. Ames described as one who was Catonior Catonemore severely virtuous than the sternest of Roman censors. Your analogue is more absurd than any of these. You might as well have carried it out by showing that Mr. Thurlow Weed was the counterpart of Aspasia.

But Pericles is not the only famous man that suffers at your hands. Mr. Seward once put in the plea of insanity for a negro accused of murder; and you pronounce his argument "one of the most eloquent in the language." The speeches of such men as Meredith, O'Conor, and Reverdy Johnson are nowhere; and Erskine's magnificent defense of Hatfield is rivaled if not eclipsed.

Your claim of great professional ability for Mr. Seward is one of the most surprising you have made. The conviction is almost universal that he knew less of law and cared less about it than any other man who has held high office in this country. If he had not abandoned the law, he might have been a sharp attorney; but he never could have risen to the upper walks of the profession. He would have been kept in the lowest rank, not by want of mental capacity or lack of diligent habits, but by the inherent defects of his moral nature. He did not believe in legal justice, and to assist in the honest administration of it was against the grain of all his inclinations. You yourself are frank enough to own that it was "not an occupation congenial to his taste," but that, on the contrary, "he held it in aversion." Being so constituted, it was impossible for him to tread the mountainranges of jurisprudence. He might as well have tried to be a great theologian without faith in the gospel. In fact, this was Mr. Seward's côté faible all through. If he had understood and respected the laws, he would have led a totally different life, and perhaps the general decay of our political institutions would not have taken place.

But let us go over the particular case of which you have given a most elaborate report, derived, no doubt, from Mr. Seward himself, or from somebody else who was decidedly his comes and fidus Achates. Your own facts and conclusions will show Mr. Seward's real grade as a lawyer, and at the same time test the value of your judgment upon his merits.

A negro was indicted for the willful, deliberate, and cold-blooded murder of a whole family. The proofs of his guilt were very clear, and the public mind was, naturally and justly, pervaded with a desire that he should suffer the punishment due to him by the laws of God and man. It was legally necessary that somebody should appear for him at the trial. But you say that this duty was made so dangerous by the excited state of public feeling, that when the trial was called all the crowd of professional men hung back in terror-all except William Henry Seward; but he, defying the "enormous hazard," and taking his life in his hand, stepped forward and undertook the service. And this you declare to have been "a scene of moral sublimity rarely to be met with in the paths of our common experience."

The moral sublimity of this scene will cease to dazzle you when you recollect that no counselor ever exposes himself to the slightest danger by defending a criminal. There is no instance on record in which the public wrath, roused by a crime, has been vented in acts