During my practice I found the judges eminently fair in summing up the evidence produced, noting the points and impartially charging the jurors, who were also fair when plaintiff and defendant were of the same race, but who, alas, too often, when the case had been argued by, or the issue was between the representatives of the two races, bowed to the prevailing bias in their verdict. Bishop, in his introduction to his "Criminal Law," has fittingly said: "The responsibilities which devolve on judicial tribunals are admitted. But a judge sitting in court is under no higher obligation to cast aside personal motives and his likes and dislikes of the parties litigant, and to spurn the bribe if proffered than any other official person acting under a jurisdiction to enforce laws not judicial. Happy will be the day when public virtue exists otherwise than in name." It often happens with cases commanding liberal fees and where the litigant has high regard for the legal learning and ability of the colored lawyer, yet conscious of this hindrance to a successful issue of his case, very naturally goes elsewhere for legal assistance. Hence, as an advocate not having inducement for continued research and opportunity for application of the more intricate elements of the law, confined to petty cases with corresponding fee, he is handicapped in his effort to attain eminence as a jurist. It has been said that great men create circumstances. But circumstances unavoidably produce great men. Henry Drummond is quoted as saying: "No matter what its possibilities may be, no matter what seeds of thought or virtue lie latent in its breast, until the appropriate environment presents itself, the correspondence is denied, the development discouraged, the most splendid possibilities of life remain unrealized, and thought and virtue, genius and art, are dead."