1828.] Court of Chaneery. 381 
similar to that which we have seen operating so injuriously in the bank- 
rupt tribunals—namely, that as the plaintiff has the selection of the 
judge for any hearing which he wishes to obtain, the same cause is 
exposed to the chance of being heard in its different stages before dif- 
ferent judges, and in the Court of Chancery, no more than in those of 
bankruptcy, has it ever yet been found that one mind could inhabit 
three bodies at once. Perhaps even the prodigal expenditure of time 
caused by this privilege is the least of the evil. It is rarely that a cause 
can be investigated at all, even in its preliminary stages, without some 
indication of the judge’s opinion on the whole matter escaping ; and of 
course these indications will not be lost upon a party who has the liberty 
of bringing it on for further hearing before the same or another judge, 
according to his option. 
But of all the existing practices of the court, perhaps the most objec- 
tionable is that which relates to its mode of obtaining testimony. Now 
it has become no less a popular truth than an axiom in jurisprudence, 
that the only efficient security for the soundness of testimony is to be 
found in the publicity of its delivery, and under the ordeal of an inte- 
rested examination. ‘ Si jamais un législateur,” says M. Bellot, a 
foreign jurist, “‘se propose le probleme du mode le plus sir de ne point 
atteindre la vérité, le code de procédure Frangais lui en fournira la solu- 
tion au titre de linterrogatoire sur fuits et articles. Pour éviter a la 
partie l’ennui de la publicité, ’embarras d’un contradicteur, pour 
affaiblir les conséquences de ses tergiversations et la honte du mensonge, 
pour lui fournir les moyens, de méditer a téte reposée, de calculer ses 
réponses, ce code exige qu’elle interroge en secret, par un seul juge, 
hors de la présence de son adversaire, et que les faits sur lesquels ’inter- 
rogation a été requises lui soient communiqués au moins vingt-quatre 
heures d’avance.”* The description here, however, given of the code 
de procedure, is a pretty accurate resemblance of the proceedings in the 
English Court of Chancery. The testimony obtained from the parties 
to a suit, is comprised either in affidavits, or in the answers of the 
defendants to the plaintiff’s bill.. In neither are the parties confronted 
with each other. The swearing is a mere ceremony before an officer of . 
the court, and the answer ‘is strictly confined to the formal string of 
allegations which the bill exhibits, and is delivered with such guarded 
caution, that its preparation is actually intrusted ‘to an advocate of the 
court. All other evidence is obtained through a set of written interro- 
gatories administered to the witnesses, not in open court, but in the 
privacy of the examiner’s apartment. All the interrogatories for the 
various witnesses in the suit are strung together. The party, or his 
agent, points out the different facts to which he wishes each to be 
examined ; but there is no power whatever, either of cross-examining 
the witness—leading him out of the formal track which is marked out 
for him, or taking advantage of his answers to found upon them new 
questions. The objections of the commissioners to the substitution for 
