Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1904-06-22

In using the writ to protect the freedom of work
and of workers.
The chief justice was equally resolute to de-
fend the constitutional rights of the individual
aRninst the government itself He could not
tolerate that these rights should be held only
by the grace or wisdom of government officials
or even the legislature. His opinion in Gross v.
Rice II Maine. 3il illustrates this. In tina, case
he held against the opinion OF an able minority,
that the legislature could not authorize the
warden of the Sta prison to prolong for bad
conduct, tie term OF Imprisonment OF convict
and that the warden liable in damages to
the coaviet for so doing even In pursuance of
the statute which had been on the statute books
anquestioned for over 60 years.
On the other hand. he upheld the power of the
State TO fully preserve order and promote the
public welfare. In his very last published
opinion, that IN Dexter Blaekden. % Maine,
AS, he maintained the power OF the legislature
to require innkeepers to give security for
obedience to the AVIS 10 their business.
without further specification 1t may be truly
said that Chief Justice Peters held to the
fundamentals. He was not moved away from
them by any tnidi;ies rennements or fallacies
in reasoning. Again, he believed and acted up
on the belief that the law IS made for man and
not a man for the law. that the Law should be
adapted for man he IS IN his daily circum-
stances, rather than for the Ideal man IN the
millennium.
lie deprecated too high strung statutss and
rules aud TOO high strung Judicial doctrines.
/ His endeayor was to reconcile them with the
! facts OF human life. 10 make them workable"
! TO use his own phrase. In this endeavor he was
| dominated by the spirit OF equity. with the
| great Roman jgrist Papnian. he held that what
was inequitabie could not be lawful.
| have heard the late chief justice called the
Mansfield Of Maiue. In his efforts to humanize
| the rules Of Law, aud adapt them TO the affairs
OF life, he was like tnaI great chief Justice.
Like Mansfield he broadened the law; he recog-
nized the customs of business and gave effect
to the honest Intentions Of men, however ex
pressed. Like Mansfield alio, he let the heaven
OF equity leaven the law.
Yet Lord Mansfield was not his eHsmplsr
Chlef,Justice Peters, even in Mansheld's day
would not have been subseryient to Tory
minister and king; would not have advocated
war upon ltberly-loying coionistsi would not
have denied the right Of the jury to determine
the question of libel or no libel; would not have
opposed the bill to enlarge the habsas corpus
act would not have been scorched by the fiery
sarcasm OF Junius for his Indifference to Magma
Charta and the Bill of Rights.
would rather liken him to Sir Matthew Hale
who stood the ineorruptible and unyiedng OPP
ponent of injustice even in the corrupt anc
tyrannical days of the Stuart Restoration.
would place under his portrait the words
nominee mutats, which that greAs divine
Richard Baxter. wrote under Chief Jnstie'
HAle's; John Andrew Peters, that unweariet
student, that prudent man, that solid philoso
pher, that great lawyer, that pillar and basis o.
justice. who would not have done an unjust ae
for any worldly price or motive" would ais'
liken him to Chief.Justice Holt, who first pro
claimed the principle that slave landing II
England became free-who feared neither King
lords nor commons in his assertion Of tbs
rights Of Eng lishmen-who alone of the judge