He was destitute of genius, and his speeches exhibited no
variety of talent. They were adapted to the argument of questions of
law before a court; hence he was not successful as a jury lawyer, and
his speeches in the house were usually convincing, although they were
never attractive. Judge Curtis' intellectual faculties matured early.
Mr. Wilde, for many years the clerk of the court of Suffolk, expressed
to me the opinion that Judge Curtis' first argument was as good as his
last argument. There can be no doubt, however, that his legal
arguments were unrivalled in recent times. He was equipped with all
the legal learning that could be required in any case. He had the
capacity to see the points on which a case must turn, and he had the
courage to pass over the immaterial facts, and points in which other
men often lay stress to the injury of their arguments, and to the
annoyance of the courts. In his arguments in the impeachment case of
President Johnson, he furnished the only ground on which the Senate
could stand in rendering a verdict of not guilty.
During his service in the House he introduced an extraordinary bill
which received little or no support from the members. By that bill it
was made a misdemeanor to flow the land of another for any purpose
whatsoever, thus changing the ancient Mill Act of the State; provided,
however, that it should not apply to any citizen of Massachusetts.
Pages:
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169