but thou and thy father's house that troubleth Israel." Then have him assemble his hosts on Mt. Carmel for the great test, to settle who should be the God of Israel. After his great triumph and his slaughter of the priests of Baal who had led the people into debauchery, he runs all the way back to Jezreel by the side of the King's chariot, there to be frightened by a woman (Jezebel, the original of Shakespeare's Lady Macbeth), and to flee for his life to the wilderness, there to crawl under a juniper tree and beg the Lord to take his life, and let him give up the fight.

What more thrilling scene was ever enacted than by Elisha? The great Syrian general had come and had been healed of his leprosy. He had sought to bestow gifts of gold and silver and apparel. The great prophet had declined them all. Such blessings were not to be measured by such a standard. The prophet's servant, Gehazi, tired of his master's poverty, could not stand this, and slips out after the Syrian concocting a lie as the excuse of his master's change of mind, and "took somewhat of him." Returning he bestows his booty in a hiding-place and enters his master's presence. "Whence comest thou, Gehazi?" "Thy servant went no whither." "Went not my heart with thee when the man turned again from his chariot to meet thee? The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee and unto thy seed forever." "And he went out from his presence a leper, white as the snow." 2 K. 5.

Peter, the unlearned Galilean, comes to be one of the mighty men of the world, and along with many others gives us this comforting truth ((1 Pet. 2:20): "For what glory is it if when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? But if when ye do well and suffer for it ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God." Had Dickens just read this when he called Mark Tapley into being? "No, sir, no trouble, but everybody is so good and kind to me there, sir, that there's no credit to be got being jolly there; anybody could do it."

And last the world's greatest human benefactor, its greatest orator, its grandest, noblest man, him whom the world has united

in placing upon its highest pedestal of honor, the apostle Paul. All landmarks in the world's history, whose record is preserved for our benefit.

CONCLUSION.

Our responsibility is great. "To whom much is given of him shall much be required" (Luke 12:48).

In Ps. 19:11, we read: "And in keeping these laws is great reward." "A good name is rather to be desired than great riches, and loving favor than silver and gold" (Prov. 22:1). The simplest of us know that the great rewards to our profession go to those who are at least believed to "walk uprightly, work righteousness, and speak the truth in their hearts" (Ps. 16).

I trust that I have made out my case to your satisfaction, gentlemen, and that you will promptly render a verdict for me to the effect that, after the Code and a set of Georgia Reports, the next most important book in a lawyer's library is a wellindexed Bible.

APPENDIX I.

THE CRITICISM OF COURTS.

PAPER BY ROLAND ELLIS, OF MACON.

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Bar Association:

In an effort to comply with the request of this austere body to furnish a paper for the annual symposium of Georgia legal wisdom, I have been much perplexed by two insistent considerations. The first-the crass unfitness of the one in this instance expected to comply with the request-I have put behind me, for the reason that I have patiently, during my connection with the association, heard and applauded papers more or less long, from nearly every member of it.

The second-the selection of a subject, which has not been broached, considered, digested and settled by those who are emperors in the kingdom of legal lore-is more difficult of successful disposition. To treat a topic already explored in these deliberations might prove disastrous, and, if I essay the dangerous flight, like the fabled Icarus, my wings of wax might fail as I neared the sun. So, without reading a discussion of any particular branch of the law, preparation of which has been unavoidably prevented, permit me to lay before you one suggestion, relating to a subject in which all lawyers are interested. I have been impressed in the last few years with the frequency of the expression, "Criticism of Courts." The press teems with the term, and its use has become frequent among members of the bar. Whenever a decision is rendered by a court of last resort, however much that decision may conflict with one's preconceived ideas of

right or law or justice, it has become customary-so generally indeed, as to approach the invariable-to warn all persons not to criticize the judgment. Such criticism is treated by many as a menace to existing institutions, and such critics as dangerous foes of law and order.

Indeed, so much has this idea grown, that the right to super stitious infallibility has, like a movable halo, by a system of declension, been transmitted somewhat to trial courts, there to envelop judgments good, bad, and indifferent with the chastened glow of its mystic light.

The press tells us that such criticism is the parent of anarchy. Some of the most prominent lawyers condemn it. Even papers read before this independent and fearless body have been deplored as attacks upon courts and laws which carried in them germs of surpassing danger. How this spirit of "lese majeste" became transplanted in such prolific crop, of late years, to the soil of a republic is difficult to fathom. Research fails to disclose to me in logic or history any reason why courts should not be criticized, and their judgments discussed and approved or condemned, as, like other products of the human, they may be fit for praise or blame. That the most momentous affairs of all mankind-life, liberty and property-should be disposed of by the arbitrament of a very few of the race demands that the conduct of those few, and the few themselves, should be scrutinized with vigilance, discussed with fearlessness, and receive impartially the meed of that justice which has been earned.

Said Mr. Justice Brewer in an address: "It is a mistake to suppose that the Supreme Court is either honored or helped by being spoken of as beyond criticism. On the contrary, the life and character of its justices should be the object of constant watchfulness by all, and its judgments subject to the freest criticism. The time is past in the history of the world when any liv ing man or body can be set on a pedestal and decorated with a halo. The moving waters are full of life and health; only in the still waters are stagnation and death." How true the observation! How many petty tyrannies, how many iniquities springing

from the exercise of a discretion which no appeal can correct, have raised their unwelcome heads within your own horizon, that in the presence of a press and people who were ready to discuss would have never shown their coward shapes.

What has ever been competent to cope with the terrible power of a judicial tribunal but the power of public opinion? Have you never reflected that courts in a républic are originally the creatures of that calm public opinion which has found expression through conventions of the people, or the people's representatives? What safer guardian of the creature may be than the creator?

Free and unrestricted discussion is essential to the foundation of correct public opinion. Correct public opinion, in a nation of freemen, must support the government and the laws, or the gov ernment must fall, and the administration of the laws pass into other hands. Upon that public opinion, which is the product of intimidation or misinformation, may rest the governing structure for a time, as a house built upon the sands, but with the storm of the awakening will come the downfall. No stable edifice can stand upon ignorance of error; truth, free, bold, naked, is the only rock. And the qualities of truth, as a foundation, are not doubted save by those who fear.

It is objected that free criticism of the judgments and personnel of courts inculcates disrespect for the law. Has any one ever told you that the source of statute law, or the duly constituted lawmaking body of a State, needed immunity from criticism in order to promote respect for its acts? And yet, the members of a legislature are bound by oaths as solemn and, comparing their number with the number of incumbents of the bench, are sustained by characters quite as high as the individuals who wear the ermine.

The free criticism by press and people of the men who make, and the measures made, laws, is not only salutary, but is the surest safeguard of the people that both govern. Should the body that administers the laws be less answerable to a fair but fearless scrutiny?