|
Athol Dear Bradburn, I received your letter the 28th
and was much obliged to you for copying so long an extract from Haughton’s[?]
letter to you. I wish we had O’Connell’s opinion. I suppose he is a good
lawyer, and he would not be afraid to express his opinion—but he might not be
willing to read the book. I concur with you, in part, as to
the cause of Phillip’s attack on my book. But an additional reason for it was
that he is no lawyer. I saw some ridiculous evidences of it on one other
occasion. He lacks one indispensable requisite of a lawyer—to wit, a knowledge
of the purpose of law. It is an old saying that a man cannot know the law,
until he knows the reason of the law. There are any number of such pettifoggers
as Phillips –they are called case lawyers—that is, they remember how
particular questions were decided in such and such instances, and that is about
all they know—they cannot tell you whether the decisions were right or
wrong—they take their law at second hand[?], and take it for granted that
decisions are correct. For the worst of
any ruling ideas, they are continually misled by words. Hence Phillips seems to
think that it is allowable to give a word as many meanings in the law, as it
has in the dictionary in the poets, or in the Bible: (you know he quoted the
Bible) without any regard to the effect upon justice and right; that the
meaning to be given to a word, in any particular instance, is entirely
arbitrary, that the court may give it such meaning as they please, and that
thenceforth that is its true meaning. By the way, after you were gone I was
looking at an argument, which I had partly written some months ago, in the
authority, or rather the non-authority of judicial decisions. Although not
completed, it was in a better condition for you to read than I had supposed,
and I was sorry that you did not have an opportunity to read it. Your brother is mistaken about free banking
in general. I do not know about the Ohio system in particular—it may be a bad
one—but I believe the majority in that state think otherwise—for the last
election turned principally upon it, as I understand,--after the system had
been in operation for a short time only, it is true, but yet long enough to
enable the people to form some judgment of it. That state is very nearly
equally divided between Whigs and Democrats, and if this system had been
unpopular, it would no doubt have turned the scale. The Democrats of that state
are of course opposed to it, for they are opposed to all banking. Still, I
suppose the system is by no means the best system of banking. I believe a part
of the capital is required to be in state stocks—and I think there is also a
good deal of machinery about it. So that it probably is no criterion, by which
to judge of real free banking. They have had in The Dr’s folks were pretty well last
night—Jane[?] left last Saturday. We are all lonely since you went away, and
very much regretted that you could not have staid [?] longer. You need not give my love, but my
respects only to Mrs. Sargeant, if it will suit you just as well. Yours truly, L. Spooner N.B. “Legal justice” is not “unnatural”—I should
think you took that idea from Phillips. [Margin]: If you
wish to finish reading my theological book you must go to the Investigator
office 35 Washington St. (I believe there is a little sign on the side of the
door), and buy[?] our [?] price 25 cents. If ever you called
on Judy Williams, or written to Judge Allen—I would not have you do wither
unless you choose. |