the light of the present, is a paradox peculiar to our system of jurisprudence.  There are lawyers and judges, who enjoy a high reputation, whose fame rests upon their profound research among the worm-eaten tomes of black-letter law, and whose glory consists in their familiarity with the opinions and axioms of men who lived and died so long ago that their very tombs are forgotten.  This class of lawyers and jurists hold in contempt all the learning, the philosophy, the practical wisdom of the present —­rejecting everything that is not bearded and hoary with age.  Seated in their libraries, in the midst of their ponderous octavos, their Roman and black-letter volumes, they reject with disdain the commentators, the opinions of the jurists of the present century; and brushing away the cobwebs and dust from the covers of their treasured relics of bygone ages, they clasp them in a loving embrace close to their hearts, exclaiming, ‘These are my jewels.’  Whatever has not the sanction of ancient authority, is folly to them—­worse than folly, for it is innovation, and that is rank impiety.

“I remember an anecdote of the celebrated William Wirt, related to show how ready his mind was, how instant in activity, and how suddenly it would flash with an eloquence, superior to that exhibited by the most elaborate preparation.  He was arguing a cause before the Supreme Court of the United States, and laid down, as the basis of his argument, a principle to which he desired to call the particular attention of the judges.  The opposing counsel interrupted him, calling for the authority sustaining his principle,—­’The book—­the book!’ demanded his adversary.  ‘Sir, and your honors,’ said Wirt, straightening himself up to his full height, ’I am not bound to grope my way among the ruins of antiquity, to stumble over obsolete statutes, or delve in black letter law, in search of a principle written in living letters upon the heart of every man.’  If the idea contained in this answer of Wirt, were more fully appreciated by our modern jurists, it would be all the better for the country.

“The common law is said to be the perfection of reason.  This is doubtless true, but it is the perfection of the reason of the present, as well as of the past.  Its principles are elastic, suiting themselves to the civilization of all ages.  They are progressive, keeping pace with the progress of all times.  They are not immutable, save in the element of right, and they therefore shape themselves to all circumstances, moving along with the onward march of trade, the commerce, the social relations, and business of the people.  The learning of to-day, the wisdom, the philosophy of to-day is profounder than that of any preceding century, and it is folly to overthrow it by, or compel it to give place to, the learning, the wisdom, the philosophy of departed and ruder ages.