The “impartial judge” is one of those pleasing fancies with which we amuse ourselves, for the reason that we can’t help it. We have got to get decisions some way or other, and we don’t quite like the idea of settling grave questions by spitting at a mark, or of guessing whether it is heads or tails in the tossing of a coin—therefore, we resort to “the impartial judge.” It is one of the jokes of Christian civilization which nobody laughs at because we have agreed that it is not a joke. Just between me and you, the “impartial judge” is brother to the “non-partisan editor,” and twin-brother to the “disinterested office-seeker.” * * * * * You say that it is generally wrong to criticize the conduct of those who make decisions. You are mistaken about that. It is generally the proper thing to do. And it is often the _only_ thing you can do. True, it is not as much satisfaction as we are entitled to, but it’s something. What would baseball be, if we couldn’t cuss the umpire? How could lawyers who lost their cases blow off the indignation, if they couldn’t cuss the judge? * * * * * You state that you were not cast down by the decision which went against you. Right. Why should you be? Whatever was _true_, previous to the decision, was _true_ afterward. And there’s where our political leaders fall down. They go about the country telling the people that a certain candidate for office is “unfit for the nomination,” and after he is nominated the same politicians claim that the _nomination_ makes him fit. How can a _nomination_ make a bad man good? That’s a deferred question which W. J. B. will answer some day or other, and you will then see it done to the queen’s taste. * * * * * Evidently you are not discouraged by the fact that you went up against a tribunal which wouldn’t yield to reason, eloquence, fact or fancy—a tribunal which had made up its mind before its members heard your speech. Right again. It’s your _duty_ to furnish the convincing argument; it is _not in your power_ to supply judges with minds open to conviction. Bigger men than you have run up against immovable obstacles of that kind. Consider W. J. B., for instance. He found, in New England, a lot of tribunals, the low, the high and the middle, which were not to be convinced that he, W. J. B., was entitled to $50,000 that old Mr. Bennett _thought_ he was leaving to our Nebraska friend by will.