The Massachusetts Spy, And Worcester County Advertiser

Chief Justice Shaw. Mr. Chief Justice Shaw is between forty-five and fifty years of age; of a firm constitution, and of laborious habits; of extensive and of various legal learning; of singular clearness of perception and communication; and of a reach and comprehension of mind, admirably adapted to master the most difficult and complicated legal questions. Men of great acuteness and discernment are often found to be too subtle and refined for the practical business of the bench; but Mr. Chief Justice Shaw happily unites the soundest practical sense with a very high degree of acumen and discrimination. He is also uncommonly exempt from party biases of all kinds—(and in these days, such a qualification is of more than ordinary importance in all our judicial officers)—and is blessed with a temperament precisely fitted to the station he is called to assume.

There are men in Massachusetts who are more extensively known abroad, and even within the limits of the State—and if the office had been filled by a vote of the primary assemblies of the people (like that of Governor) it is not probable that Mr. Shaw could have succeeded. He has not been a political leader, nor has he been led by politicians. Though often called by the people of Boston, into the Senate or House of Representatives, he has not pursued the course which gains the highest eclat: but has diligently attended to the best interests of his constituents and of the commonwealth; and exerted his efforts for their good, without direct reference to his own fame or advancement.

This is the second instance only, in which a Chief Justice of Massachusetts has been taken from the bar. But it has always been done in the Supreme Court of the United States: and the present Chief Justice of the King's Bench is the only man who, for the last century has been promoted to that office from a lower seat on that bench. As a general rule, it seems to us decidedly preferable, for many reasons, that a Chief Justice should be taken directly from the bar. He will better know the deficiencies and peculiarities in the court, (if any exist) which require correction, than one who has been upon the bench, and who, therefore, has been excluded from that unreserved intercourse with the members of the profession, which alone can apprise him of their views and opinions on topics of this nature. A puisne judge it is true, may on his accession to office, carry equal knowledge of these things to the bench—but he cannot carry there an equal power of correction. We believe we express a very common sentiment, when we say that much more confident and rational hope of improving the jurisprudence of any state or country is allowable, when the head of the court is selected from the bar, than when a side judge is made Chief Justice. There are doubtless exceptions to this remark—and we doubt not that either of the associates of the late Judge Parker whom he left to mourn his sudden death, would have ably and satisfactorily fulfilled the duties which are devolved on his successor.