ciple was first settled in an act of Parliament, the
object of which was to suppress what are denominated wager policies
of insurance--a species of instrument well known to lawyers as
gambling policies, being entered into when the party insuring has
no interest in the property insured. It had been a question whether
such policies were lawful by the common law. The practice had
greatly increased, insomuch that wager policies had become a common
thing. It was with a view to suppress these that the statute of the
nineteenth of George the Second, chapter thirty-seventh, was
passed. The object of that statute was good; it was remedial in its
character; it went to suppress a public evil; but, while it
prohibited wager policies in all other cases, it contained _an
express exception in favor of those made on vessels trading to
Spain and Portugal_."

After commenting on this act of the British Parliament, he quotes
the words of Blackstone, who, after stating the nature of these
smuggling policies, and dwelling upon their immorality and
pernicious tendency, refers to the law above mentioned, which
enacts "that they shall be totally null and void, except as to
policies on privateers in the Spanish and Portuguese trade, _for
reasons sufficiently obvious_." (2 Blackstone, ch. XXX., p. 4, Sec.
1.) On this statement of Blackstone Mr. Adams remarks:

"It is an old maxim of the schools that frauds are always concealed
under generalities. What were these _obvious reasons_? Why were
they concealed? It is known to the committee that, in the
celebrated controversy of the man in the mask,--I mean Junius with
Blackstone,--he said, that for the defence of law, of justice, and
of truth, let any man consult the work of that great judge, his
Commentaries upon the laws of England; but, if a man wanted to
cheat his neighbor out of his estate, he should consult the doctor
himself. I go a little further than Junius, although I do it with
great reluctance, for I hold the book to be one of the best books
in the world. I say that the observation of Junius applies to the
book as much as to the judge, when, from reasons like those with
which scoundrels cover their consciences, that book evades telling
why the exception was made in regard to Spain and Portugal, and
what those reasons were which the judge declares