TY - JOUR
AU - Zobel, Hiller B.
AB - THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL HISTORY Vol. XV colleague William Johnson. Similarly, Rhodes might have noted the number of pages of documents, without too much trouble or space. Perhaps more serious are the opinion summaries, whose brevity lends them an air of authenticity, which may not have been intended. At any rate, it is possible to arrive at a somewhat different interpretation than Rhodes, of say Sturges v. Crowninshield, and the reader should be aware of this situation. The point of editing has been belabored because of the apparent unwillingness of the National Historical Records Com­ mission to support Rhodes because he is a "nonprofessional." Given the advantage of retrospect, the Commission was in error. Certainly Rhodes' work is not free from mistake, as noted, but measured against the dedication and energy in evidence, they are a relatively small price to pay for a better understanding of John Marshall and the development of American law. It is even conceivable that these errors might have been eliminated if Rhodes had received the suppc rt he deserved. DONALD ROPER State University, New Paltz, New York Julius Goebel, Jr. and others, editors, The Law Practice of Alex­ ander Hamilton, Documents and Commentary. 
TI - The Law Practice of Alexander Hamilton, Documents and Commentary
JO - American Journal of Legal History
DO - 10.2307/844233
DA - 1971-04-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/the-law-practice-of-alexander-hamilton-documents-and-commentary-61Mu65GsB2
SP - 146
EP - 150
VL - 15
IS - 2
DP - DeepDyve
ER -