Cockburn at his best, nor the vigorous common sense of Sir William Erle, nor the wide, legal erudition of the late Mr. Justice Willes, nor the intimate knowledge of the various branches of commercial law of the late Lord Bramwell, nor the hard-headed logic of Lord Blackburn (I do not refer to eminent judges still on the bench); nevertheless he cannot be said to have lacked any quality essential in a great judge. Some of his judgments may well take rank with the best of his time, and many of them are marked by an elegance of diction and possess a literary merit not often met with in judicial records. His judgments in the litigation of the Duke of Norfolk, in relation to the Fitzalan Chapel, in the case (commonly known as 'the Mignonette Case') of the seamen Dudley and Stephen (charged with murder in having, under stress of hunger, killed and eaten a boy, one of their crew), and in the remarkable commercial case known as the 'Mogul Boycotting Case,' may be referred to as good examples. His direction to the jury on the trial for blasphemy of Ramsey and Foote in 1883 is regarded as a departure from the law upon that subject as previously laid down by eminent men-a departure, departure, be it added, which has, I think, received the sanction of the profession generally, and a departure in consonance with the freer and more tolerant spirit of the time. That charge, in effect, amounts to this: That it is not a criminal act to attack in decent and considered argument even the fundamental truths of religion as generally received. Lord Coleridge had

influence with juries, and also treated them with great courtesy and consideration. He made it clear what his own view of a case was, while careful to remind jurors that it was their right and duty to deter mine disputed questions of fact. Herein he acted upon Bacon's celebrated advice (he was a constant reader of Bacon) to Mr. Justice Hutton: 'You should be light to jurors to open their eyes, but not a guide to lead them by their noses.'"-From an article by Lord Russell on the late Lord Chief Justice of England, North American Review of Sep., 1894.

Lord Coleridge's Voice.

"Mr. Coleridge had remarkable gifts of speech. To this he added a distinguished presence, and a voice the beauty of which I have not often known surpassed. Indeed, if I except the voices of perhaps Sir Alexander Cockburn, Mr. Gladstone, the present Sir Robert Peel, and the late Father Burke, of the Dominican order, I shall have exhausted the list of those who may be said to have been his superiors in this respect."-Idem.

JOHN RUTLEDGE, SOUTH CAROLINA.

(1739-1800.)

Second Chief Justice of the United States. "A man of great legal learning and superb organizing genius." Born in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1739. Died there July 23, 1800, aged sixty-one. His father was an Irish physician who emigrated five years before the son's birth. Two of his brothers were distinguished lawyers-Hugh, being a celebrated admiralty and equity judge of South Carolina, and Edward, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, Governor of South Carolina, and, had he chosen to accept the appointment, an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. The three brothers studied law at the Temple, London. John having been finely educated in the classics, commenced his legal studies at seventeen, completing them by two years' study in England. Was called to the Charleston bar at twenty-two. His success was immediate. In his first case (a breach of promise of marriage), his eloquence and ability astonished all. His business grew large, and he became a leader at

the bar. He was sent, 1765, to the Congress at New York, where he denounced the Stamp Act; represented the planters in the First Continental Congress at Philadelphia, in which he was pronounced by Patrick Henry, "by far the greatest orator;" was chairman of the committee that framed a constitution for South Carolina, 1776; Governor of the State, 1776-82, in which capacity his genius shone forth as commander-in-chief of the military forces, in resisting the British, being dubbed, "Dictator John;" member of the Federal Constitutional Convention; Chancellor of the Equity Court of his State; declined, 1784, the mission to Holland; appointed one of the first Associate Justices of the United States Supreme Court, 1789, but resigned to take the Chief Justiceship of South Carolina; made Chief Justice by Washington, 1795, and held the office six months, being rejected by the Senate. He was tall and robust; with broad forehead and black, piercing eyes; firm, delicate mouth; powdered hair, combed back and tied behind. He was ardent, impulsive, resolute, thoughtful, earnest and forceful.

Personal Appearance and Characteristics.

"He was tall, well framed and robust; his forehead broad, his eyes dark and piercing; his mouth indicated firmness and decision; his hair, combed back according to the fashion of the day, was powdered and tied behind. His aspect was resolute, and wore an expression of thought and determination. His feelings were warm and ardent, and he had an impulsive energy, which, however, was controlled by a vigorous common sense. Earnestness was the secret of his power; the supreme element of his character was Force.'"-Thos. J. Semmes: The Supreme Court of the United States.

Served in House of Representatives After Being on Supreme Bench.

With the exception of Judge David Davis, John Rutledge is the only case in our history of a man's entering Congress after service on the Supreme bench.

His Efforts in Behalf of the Constitution.

"In 1787 he was a member of the convention that framed the Federal Constitution, exercising in its deliberations an influence excelled by few, in particular opposing the proposition to prevent the importation of slaves into the States, as virtually excluding the Carolinas and Georgia from the Union, but agreeing to the limit of twenty-one years for such importation."-Nat'l. Cyclo. of American Biog., art. John Rutledge.