In the twenty years that I knew him he had for his
antagonists Webster, Choate, Davis, Curtis, Franklin, Dexter, and
others of eminence, and he never failed to sustain himself upon terms
of equality. This was remarkable in presence of the fact that he was
likely to be retained on the hard side of most cases. This was due,
perhaps, to his reputation for shrewdness, and for a quality in
practice which has been called the inventive faculty. When parties
were not allowed to testify, there was a wide field for the
imagination, and for the exercise of the inventive faculties on the
part of an advocate. He had defended, successfully, the Ursuline
Convent rioters, and he had been employed in many desperate cases on
the civil side and on the criminal side of the courts.
In his later years he read very little either in law, history, or
general literature. His law library was meager, although he had
usually one or two students in his office. He preferred to discuss his
cases with the loungers about the post-office and stores, getting
thereby the benefit of the opinions of common men.
His manner in speaking was inartistic, and although he was a graduate
of Harvard, he indulged himself in the use of country phrases and
rustic pronunciation. His logic was unanswerable, and his faculty of
cross-examination of witnesses was worthy of emulation.
Pages:
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76