INTRODUCTION In contributing an introductory note to the present volume, I yield to the request of Dr. Leavell, by whom the preface is written. The extent of my acquaintance with the author, the late Senator George of Mississippi, would scarcely justify me in offering to connect my name with the publication of his work. It happened, however, to be my fortune, while he occupied a seat in the United States Senate, to see something of his labors, to observe the high ability and integrity which he brought to the consideration of public questions, and also to appreciate the strong human qualities and attachments which, although they came little to the notice of the general public, peculiarly endeared him to his friends. His colleague, the late Senator Platt of Connecticut, a most competent judge, has borne testimony to the extraordinary ability which characterized his minority report on the bill to provide for Inquests under National Authority. It is not going too far to say that the same ability and earnestness generally characterized whatever he did. His understanding was both sure and profound. His premises granted, he reached his conclusions by an unerring logic. United with this gift was an unusual capacity for labor, and a conscientious care that knew no weariness. Senator George's exposition of constitutional questions naturally attracted wider attention than did most of his other public discussions, but he manifested no less ability in dealing with questions of a different order. In the debate on the unratified fisheries treaty with Great Britain, which took place in the summer of 1888, he bore an important part. The subject was entirely new to him, but it may confidently be affirmed that there was no speech made in the course of the long and exhaustive controversy that exhibited a more thorough investigation of the subject, a fuller comprehension of its history and legal relations, or a more candid treatment of it than did his. While our author marshalled his facts and his arguments with logical precision, he habitually expressed himself accurately, forcibly and often with singular felicity. These qualities he exhibited even in writings entirely devoid of any element of popular interest or excitement, such as his digest of the decisions of the Supreme Court and of the High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi, which was published in 1872. This work, which was produced in the course of five years in the intervals of absorbing professional pursuits, he declared to have been a labor of love. This circumstance accounts not only for the exceptional excellence of the performance, but also for the distinct and marked personal element in it. This trait may be said to have given to all his work a certain characteristic. His heart as well as his mind entered into his task. Just as the encouragement and commendation of his brethren at the bar led him to prosecute to completion his digest, so, when he reached the end of his labors, his feelings led him to give to it an additional personal flavor by dedicating it to an old companion in arms. This dedication I have never heard mentioned; but, having chanced to see it on the first occasion when I made use of the volume, I was so much struck with its simple eloquence, and its depth and tenderness of feeling, that it has ever since occupied a place in my recollection. It reads as follows: TO THE MEMORY OF WHO FELL AT THE BATTLE OF SHILOH, THIS WORK IS DEDICATED. A profound lawyer-a pure and an honest man-a firm and upright patriot; he offered his life, and its rich and varied gifts, to the cause of his native land. That cause was to him a faith-and its followers, brothers; and no one was more devoted to its fortunes than he. Our brethren of the Bar, in this as in all times past, were the stern advocates of freedom, and they staked all upon the issue of that cause, in the bloody arbitrament of battle. Our heroes were vanquished, and the victor is now the judge. As misfortune endears the sufferer, so he who falls in battle in the defence of his convictions, bears thenceforth a charmed name. To that cause, which bound up my own most cherished sympathies, and to my professional brethren, who bore so large a share of its burdens, I desire to place the expression of my attachment and admiration upon this record, frail though it may be. "It is a cause, and not the fate of a cause, which is a glory.” All those who, like Aldridge, whether they fell or survived, gave their best efforts to their country, are enshrined in my recollection; but I here select his name, not because it is the highest or the brightest amongst them all, but because it was to me the best beloved. In the sentiments expressed in this dedication may be found the key to the present work. Senator George was convinced that the struggle between the North and the South was to be regarded as a contest over the principle of the balance of power. Candidly admitting (p. 52) that the main purpose of the South in advocating the annexation of Texas was to increase "its waning power," he maintains that the North, in opposing the annexation, was animated by an antagonistic design. Whether the reader shall agree or disagree with the contention that the question of the balance of power rather than that of slavery was the fundamental cause of the conflict, it serves to denote what the author means when he speaks of those who sustained the cause of secession as being the advocates of freedom. The contest being, as he contended, in its essence a struggle for political power, the South, according to this view, in supporting what it conceived to be its rights under the Constitution, was asserting the cause of political freedom. Although Senator George strenuously maintains on this ground the justice of the Southern cause, he is yet ready to concede that the passions of the hour were not confined to one side. Referring to the debates on the Wilmot Proviso and other measures associated with the controversy as to the extension of slavery, he remarks (p. 56) upon the “passion and heat of the debates" and observes that "there seemed to be insanity on both sides with reference to the Territories." His present argument is intended as an appeal to the calm and deliberate judgment after the passions of the hour have subsided and the embers of controversy have ceased to glow; and as such it will be accepted and pondered by the reader in a fair and dispassionate spirit. This is what the author obviously desired; and he would have asked for nothing more. John Bassett Moore NEW YORK, March 10, 1915. |