originated. . . . I may be wrong in my view of the subject; the order may be sanctioned by former precedents ; but my predecessors in office have left nothing for my guidance. . .[1]
He was no less explicit about his duty when, sought by the secretary of the navy a few months later for aid, he declared: "As my official duty is confined to the giving my opinion on questions of law, I consider myself as having nothing to do with the settlement of controverted questions of fact. . .[2]
A month after Wirt's death, on March 18, 1834, his friend, Samuel L. Southard—for some years his colleague in the cabinet—gave a public address in the hall of the House of Representatives at Washington on William Wirt's career. Speaking of Wirt's opinions as attorney-general, Southard said:
They all relate to matters of importance in the construction of the laws. . . . They will prevent much uncertainty in that office hereafter; afford one of the best collections of materials for writing the legal and constitutional history of our country; and remain a proud monument to his industry, learning and talents. . .[3]
It was seven years after Wirt's death (1841) that the first volume of the Official Opinions of the Attorneys-General, authorized by Congress, was issued. Similar collections have been compiled and printed at intervals ever since, and they constitute today a well-known and useful series. They amount to official justifications of the conduct of our Presidents.[4] In the first volume Wirt's opinions occupied over five-hundred pages in a total of 1471. Not one of his predecessors was represented by
- ↑ House Documents, op. cit.
- ↑ Opinions of the Attorneys-General, page 254. (House Ex. Doc., 26th Cong., 2d sess., Doc't No. 123.) Date of opinion, April 3, 1820.
- ↑ S. L. Southard, Discourse etc. (1834), page 36.
- ↑ House Ex. Doc., 26th Cong., 2d sess., Doc't No, 123. See in this connection an article, "Contrast between the Duties of the Attorney-General of the United States and those of the Law Officers of the British Crown," 38 American Law Review, November-December, 1904, pp. 924–925. In England the opinions of the law officers of the Crown are always held as confidential. It is believed by some lawyers that the withholding of these opinions amounts to a serious loss to the body of English jurisprudence. The subject was discussed in the House of Commons on April 26, 1901.
