and of public taxes, marshals and even courts-martial. Clearly these practices went far beyond the provisions of law. Resting on courtesy merely, they impressed Wirt as dangerous. His criticism took this form of statement:
from the connection of the Attorney-General with the executive branch of the government . . . his advice and opinions, given as Attorney-General, will have an official influence, beyond, and independent of, whatever intrinsic merit they may possess: and whether it be sound policy to permit this officer or any other under the government, even on the application of others, to extend the influence of his office beyond the pale of law, and to cause it to be felt, where the laws have not contemplated that it should be felt, is the point which I beg leave to submit. . .[1]
The conclusions which Wirt drew may be summarized. First, and above all things, provision should be made in law for keeping the records and preserving the documents of the office. This would make for consistency of opinions and uniformity of practices. Second, there should be a depository in the office of the attorney-general for the statutes of the various states, statutes which might be needed at short notice for aid in solving legal problems. In this matter Wirt was asking simply for a special library to facilitate his work. Finally, he suggested that legal restrictions be placed on the duties of the officer for the obvious reason that one man could not find time to perform the work if he were obliged to attend to such miscellaneous calls as had been made upon the time and energy of his predecessors. The experience of several months had already shown to him that "very little time is left to the Attorney-General to aid the salary of his office by individual engagements," a fact, he thought, which might account in part for the number of resignations which had occurred among his predecessors.[2]
This letter marks a new epoch in the history of the attorney-general's office. So far as the position of attorney-general
