education. In this respect he strongly resembled William Lewis. In mere intellectual power, they were equal, if not superior, to most of their cotemporaries; but having unassisted, as it were, elevated themselves upon the ladder of ambition, above the masses, with a natural, but not commendable spirit, they held the courtesies and amenities of life as matters of comparative indifference. They became reserved, haughty, and sometimes overbearing; and from being in advance of those who had enjoyed greater advantages or opportunities, they assumed superiority over those who, with equal native capacity, had been benefited and improved by all the charms, embellishments, and appliances of a refined education.

Competition and equality subdue pride. They impart to us the salutary lesson, that talents, after all, are not so unequally distributed as may by some be supposed; that with equal chances and equal labour men attain equal eminence, when their efforts are judiciously directed; if not in the same departments of life, yet in others of equal utility. This conviction should teach us all, becoming modesty and humility.

Vanity may sometimes attend upon true greatness, but pride-never. Vanity is often the stimulus to great achievements; pride is only their substitute. Pride walks alone through life in assumed self-dependence; vanity lives and breathes only in a crowd. Pride appeals from others to itself; vanity

appeals from itself to others.

There is little in this

life to encourage either, but the latter is the less exceptionable of the two. But suggesting, rather than pursuing these reflections, pass we now to Bushrod Washington, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; a model judge, the idol of the bar, and the glory of the American bench.

* As a general thing, it has been well remarked-though certainly not applicable in the present instance that "your would-be dignified men are great blockheads; they carry themselves loftily and keep at a distance, that their ignorance may not be detected. Men are like ships, the more they contain, the lower they carry their head." There are, to be sure, many illustrious instances to the contrary; Lord Chatham, Lord Erskine, and Mr. Pinckney-but the display for which they were remarkable, arose rather from inordinate vanity, than pride. This was also the besetting sin of Hortensius. He was so devoted to dress and to theatrical gesticulation, that he was accused of having derived a fondness for both from a close study of Roscius, at that time the most distinguished of all the dramatic performers in Rome. But, upon the contrary, it turned out upon investigation, that, instead of he borrowing from Roscius, the latter regularly attended the forum, for the purpose of imitating Hortensius!

CHAPTER V.

BUSHROD WASHINGTON.

WASHINGTON-the proudest and brightest name in the annals of our country-was preceded by James Wilson, James Iredell, William Patterson, and Samuel Chase, in the order in which they are named, as Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States; all of whom, separately, presided from time to time (in the spring and fall of the year,) in the United States Circuit Courts for the district of Pennsylvania. A brief notice of those eminent men, is all that is required, as an introduction to their more eminent successor.

Judge Wilson, for many years prior to his appointment, had been a powerful advocate at the Philadelphia bar; but his reputation on the bench, as we are told, was inferior to his fame as an advocate. He held his judicial post, however, from the twenty-ninth of

September, 1789, until 1798, when death relieved him from his official duties.

Judge Iredell was appointed in 1790, and occupied the bench until 1799, when he died, universally esteemed and regretted. William Patterson, of New Jersey, is described as an excellent lawyer, a man of great moral and mental worth, and of extraordinary judicial patience and propriety. He was appointed in 1793, and died in 1806. Samuel Chase, of Maryland, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, a man of ripe legal learning, but of a lofty and most despotic spirit, became an associate justice in the year 1796.

Judge Chase appears never to have been in much favor with the Philadelphia bar, although its members all united in ascribing to him abilities of no common order. We have spoken of the Philadelphia bar, which may be said at that period, to have virtually embraced the bar of the whole country. Philadelphia was then, let it be remembered, the centre of the Union and the seat of the general government; all the rays of society-science and intelligence-centred upon her; she was the very cynosure of the nation. Yet, with all the competition of learning and accomplishment that this condition of things naturally involved, the legal profession here, always maintained its supremacy; and the glory then acquired—even now, in its departing beams, still fur

nishes some faint idea of its meridian brightness and fulness.

He must, indeed, have been a proud man, though adorned with high official honors, that even in fancy could elevate himself above such a bar as then graced our courts; and he must have been a bold and presumptuous man, that could hope to overawe it. Judge Chase attempted both, and failed in both; and by overreaching his legitimate rights, diminished his power. An infant might win such a bar, but a giant could not control it. They stood as one man, with as firm and as pure a purpose as animated their ancestors, who shook off the yoke of foreign oppression and bartered blood for liberty. If the bar should always thus prove faithful to themselves, no court could ever encroach upon their privileges with impunity.

From the moment Judge Chase took his seat, it was obvious, that he had either mistaken himself or those around him. Civility was an essential integral part of the profession; it was extended to all-it was expected from all. It may well be conceived, therefore, what was the surprise experienced by one of the mildest, most pious, and most exemplary men of the time to which we refer, and to whose recollection we owe the anecdote upon entering the Circuit Court room where Judge Chase presided-to be made a witness to the following discreditable occurrence.

An important case was before the Court, in which a