for Pandorus, in Troilus and Cressida, en- couraging Troilus to express his feelings to- ward Cressida, saying, “Troilus, so rub on and kiss the mistress,/How now, a kiss in fee farm?” Senter quoted a law dictionary common in Shakespeare’s time, explaining that a “fee farm is when a tenant holds of his lord in fee simple, paying to him the val- ue of half of the third, fourth, or other part of the land by the year.” Senter then des- canted on the mistake:
Then what relation can this definition of fee farm have to a kiss? In Shake- speare’s time fee farm was a very common expression, for there was a great deal of land in England held in fee farm, and Shakespeare must have known the term and its meaning, but that any lawyership is shown in ap- plying it to a kiss is beyond compre- hension. If it has any legal significance whatever, it must mean a kiss in per- petuity, or forever, then it would read: “How, now, a kiss forever.”
This would be rather a long kiss, or in other words, too much of a good thing.35
Senter concluded that Shakespeare was no lawyer, but the argument and conclusion are less interesting here than his approach to the subject. Senter obviously took great care in preparing the talk, reading wide- ly from the legal treatises and dictionar- ies available in Shakespeare’s day, and re- flecting a comprehensive understanding of the origins of England common law and its courts. He reached the height of his ar- gument in a revealing reaction to historian Cushman Davis’ theory that Shakespeare was a lawyer because he “had a lawyer’s conservatism.” Davis wrote that the play- wright “respected the established order of things.”36
Knowing what we know of John H. Sent-
er, we can predict his reaction. He called the idea specious, as from the very begin- ning lawyers have “resisted the prerogative of the crown,” and that the bar
has always stood for liberty, the rights of the people, and the oppressed. They have been foremost in reforms and revolutions, and it is one of the strongest arguments to show that Shakespeare was not a lawyer, and never had a legal training, nor the broadening of the mind which a le- gal training gives, that he did show ac- quiescence in the established order of things, and that he made no mention of the rights of Englishmen under their great charter.37
No one ever called John H. Senter con- servative, either as an individual or as an attorney. He had the spirit, audacity, and spark to set things afire when he commit- ted to a point of view. He was sometimes coarse in his private life, but eloquent in his public life, and determined in all things.
Aggressiveness in Lawyering
John H. Senter’s portrait is so perfect, not only for portraying the temperament of this dynamo of an advocate, but for re- minding all of us who stand in that court- room that we cannot forswear passion in our prosecution and defense of our clients’ causes. Intemperate words are over the top, but fire can be demonstrated by force of word and personality. This man was se- rious, in everything he did. Fix your face in that pose, and turn to the court. Counselor, you may begin your argument. ____________________ Paul S. Gillies, Esq., is a partner in the Montpelier firm of Tarrant, Gillies, Merri- man & Richardson and is a regular contribu- tor to the Vermont Bar Journal.
____________________ 1
In a letter written in 1879, Senter, describing
his reading of the law in place of teaching, ex- plained that he was “happy to say, I have broken
10 THE VERMONT BAR JOURNAL • SPRING 2012
www.vtbar.org
of that habit.” KAREN S. BECK, A WORKING LAWYER’S
LIFE 116 (2008). 2
Karen S. Beck’s A Working Lawyer’s Life offers an extraordinary look at the law practice of Sent- er while in Warren, presenting more than three hundred transcriptions of correspondence from his letter book. Beck, Curator of Rare Books at Boston College Law Library, edited the letter
Clarence H. Senter was born in 1878, raised in Montpelier, and, after practicing with his father for a few years, moved to Hartford, Connecti- cut, to join the law department of the Phoenix Insurance Company. 4 NEW ENGLAND FAMILIES, GE- NEALOGICAL AND MEMORIAL 2139 (1914). Karen Beck believes Clarence was named for Senter’s men-
book after it was donated to the library. 3
tor, Clarence Pitkin. BECK, supra note 1, at 33. 4
(1906). 5
34 THE INSURANCE YEARBOOK: FIRE AND MARINE 372
Frank Fish, John H. Senter, in WALTER HILL CROCKETT, VERMONT: THE GREEN MOUNTAIN STATE 410
(1926); BECK, supra note 1, at 15-22. 6
ed., 1889), at 135. 7
note 5, at 142. 9
HAMILTON CHILD, 2 GAZETTEER OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, VERMONT, 1783-1889 (William Adams
MAGAZINE (Aug. 1901), at 153-155, 471, 485. 8
The City of Montpelier, THE VERMONTER: A STATE Frank Fish, Jonathan Ross, in CROCKETT, supra Downing v. Lyon, 57 Vt. 507 (1885).
10 City of Montpelier v. Senter, 72 Vt. 112 (1900). 11 Town of East Montpelier v. Town of Montpe-
lier, 65 Vt. 193 (1893). The issue on appeal was whether the Town should be held to a default when the town clerk failed to show a copy of a summons to the selectmen, an argument Senter
was able to deflect, allowing the appeal. 12
Foss v. Smith, 79 Vt. 434, 441 (1907). 14 BECK, supra note 1, at 76. 16 Id. at 88, 195. 18 Id. at 137. 20 Id. at 236.
13 Id. at 445. 15 Id. at 77-78. 17 Id. at 145. 19 Id. at 150. 21 Id. at 152.
22 Id. at 253-254.
23 Durant v. Pratt, 55 Vt. 270 (1882) (his first re- ported case); Miller v. Holmes, 89 Vt. 261 (1915)
(his last). 24
State in State v. Kelley, 65 Vt. 531 (1893). 25 State v. Fiske, 66 Vt. 434 (1894).
26 State in State v. Jewett, 76 Vt. 435 (1904);
Ex parte Mac Fock, 207 F. 696 (1913) and In re Weeks, 82 F. 729 (1897). In the last case, the district court overturned a contempt citation against the collector for refusing to provide in- formation in a state prosecution for tax evasion, finding that “the state has no right to federal in- struments of purely federal character for proof, unless they are left within its reach, and these are
not, but are put without that reach.” 82 F. at 732. 27
BECK, supra note 1, at 34-36.
28 The City of Montpelier, supra note 7, at 155. 29 MASON ARNOLD GREEN, NINETEEN-TWO IN VERMONT:
THE FIGHT FOR LOCAL OPTION 11-12 (1912). 30
Id. at 136-137. 31 Id. 32 WALTER HILL CROCKETT, 4 VERMONT: THE GREEN
MOUNTAIN STATE 372 (1921). 33
(1903), at 3. 34
John H. Senter, Was Shakespeare a Lawyer?, Proceedings of the Vermont Bar Association
Id. at 13-15.
35 Id. at 25-26. 36 Id. at 50.
37 Id. at 50-51.
Ruminations: John H. Senter
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40