the old Federalist ranks approved of this rude policy, and Daniel Webster even nodded his lion head in commendation of such a course. At length the Governor, after repeatedly soliciting Mr. Mason to accept the office, and his positive refusal, reluctantly turned in other directions, and appointed young Levi Woodbury, thus making the highest court to consist of Richardson as Chief, and Bell and Woodbury as associates. This was a trio of able men, and the bench speedily gained a high place among the State judiciaries. For two-and-twenty years Chief-Justice Richardson administered the law with an even hand and becoming dig nity, thus making the longest term of con tinuous service that ever fell to the lot of a New Hampshire judge. The present Chief, Charles Doe, had it not been for a political hiatus of two years, has been on the bench since 1859, which is almost the longest ten ure of judicial office ever held. With Judge Richardson came a reform that will cause his name to be revered by the profession; for it was he who began the systematic re ports of decisions. Before this the only way to get reports was from the note-books of the judges, or from minutes jotted down by some methodical lawyer, both very uncer tain and doubtful sources of information. To a man who loved order, as Judge Rich ardson did, such a loose practice shocked him, and he forthwith made arrangements whereby the decisions should be collected and regularly published. The new court had scarcely got into working order, when the Dartmouth College Case came before it for adjudication. The Chief-Justice delivered the unanimous opin ion of his court, and thus rescued his name from legal oblivion. This great lawsuit is pre eminently the cause ctlebre of the American bar, and will always remain so, owing to the remarkable combination of circumstances attending it. The Dred Scott Case de pended entirely upon the social condition of the times for its renown, but the case of
the College involved the gravest public pol icy, and brought forth from the highest tri bunal in the land an interpretation of the National Constitution. But in a personal point of view the case was remarkable. Around none has such an array of superior intellect ever been gathered. The judges and the lawyers who actively took part in the trial and arguments bear the greatest names in American jurisprudence and statesman ship, — Webster, Marshall, Story, Mason. Kent, Wirt, Pinkney, Hopkinson, Smith, Richardson, Woodbury, and Bartlett. The decision of Judge Richardson and his asso ciates, while overruled by Judge Marshall, was acknowledged to be able; and Mr. Web ster declared it to be " plausible and ingen ious," — qualifying terms emanating, maybe, from the great man's prejudice. For more than two decades, often distressed by ill ness, Judge Richardson kept toiling on; but at last disease wore him out, and he died March 23, 1838. He was industry personi fied, and his habits contributed largely to the better preparation and trial of causes. Judge Bell, who went on the bench at the same time, had resigned in 18 19 to take his seat as Governor, while his associate, Wood bury, stayed a little longer, when he too re signed, in 1823, to become chief-magistrate of his State. To the remotest generation of political students the name of Levi Woodbury will be known, for he was the sure possessor of that ability that history will keep fresh. His name is connected with the most hon orable offices of the Republic and the State. Twice he was chosen to the Sen ate of the United States; twice he held cabinet positions, namely, Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of the Treasury; twice he was offered distinguished diplomatic mis sions, — once to Great Britain, — but de clined them. On the death of Judge Story, in 1845, President Polk appointed Mr. Wood bury as his successor. Judge Woodbury was distinguished for practical wisdom and mar vellous powers of analysis, and yet but few
