The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-07-25

he is not so simple as to suppose that either
competent judge or an intelligent jury will
mistake invective for argument.
OF the two eminent counsel who have
already pleaded in the case of Greeley versus
Grant, one has occasionally forgotten the rule
prevailing in the higher courts and the other
has ignored it altogether Carl Schurz for
the plaintiff made in the main mastery,
dignifed and impressive argument-an
fit to be delivered be-
fore q jury of intelligent white men
who understand the history of their country,
and are not mere goods and chattels in the
hands of cunning political managers Lawyer
Schurz paid the compliment to the American
people who sit upon the jury he addressed of
believing them to be DESTROYS of deciding hon.
estly on the merits of the case they are try
ing, and capable Of Distinguishing truth
from falsehood, and sound argument from
rhetorical flourish. Now and then he evinced
a little too much personal feeling against the
defendant, and occasionally he weakened the
force of his otherwise powerful plea by wan
dering off on to side issues, which the Court
the independent press of the country
will instruct the jury, have nothing
to do with the case; such as the
French arms, Custom House and Naval De-
partment Investigations. and the nepotism
nonsense. But in his statesmanlike-we
ought, perhaps, to say lawyerlike-review of
that portion of the plaintiffs case which
charges upon the defence unconstitutional
g @ba Al
injustice to the white citizens of the South
dangerous and reprehensible attempt to excite
the deadly animosity of the negroes against the
whites, in order to secure the votes of the for
mer by playing on their ignorance, suspicion
and bigotry an incompetent management of
our foreign relations; faithlessness to real
civil service reform; in all this he came fully
up to the standard as an able and brilliant
pleader, and certainly did excellent
service for his client. It is to be
regretted that the counsel for the de-
fence, who followed lawyer Schurz, was
unequal to the occasion. There is no good
reason why his effort should have been
failure, yet it certainly was not a success.
Counsel Conkling is man Of ssenius, learning
and address, who stands in as proud position
in New York as Sumner at his age occupied
in his own State. Famous as an orator,
supposed to be capable as lawyer, known
to be experienced as politician, and having
the advantage of being the last speaker, it was
anticipated that his argument would crush the
effort of the Missouri pleader out of existence.
Yet he left every strong point of the plaintiffs
counsel untouched, and devoted his efforts to
violent personal abuse of the plaintiff and his
friends and to q futile effort to create dissen-
sion and division between the parties who are
joined in the suit.
From beginning to end of lawyer Conklings
address the Jury will find nothing but weak
rehash of all the tittle-tattle of the national
capital for the last eighteen months; profit
less assault upon the plaintiff consistency,
and lengthy, diluted explanations in regard to
side charges, about which tbs jury care nothing,
and which will not influence their verdict one
way or the other. To be sure the counsel
spoke in glowing terms of the virtues and
merits of his distinguished client /; but as he is
personally known to all the jurors this
was scarcely necessary. They are per-
fectly competent to judge for them
selves Of the services of the defendant
and of the loyalty and competency
of the plaintiff, and if they choose to
vote for the latter, they are probably as capa-
BILE of judging of the propriety and con-
sistency of the act as is Lawyer Conkling
himself But they are trying case in which
they are expected to find whether the de-
PENDANT has been true to a great trust
which he has filed for four years and
seeks to continue to hold; whether he has
Loyalty obeyed the constitution in its applica-
ton to oil parts of the country, or whether
the allegations Of the plaintiff are true and it
is just and wise to transfer the trust to his
hands. On all these grave and important
points Counsel Conkling was dumb, and,
so far as he is concerned. would suffer
judgment to go against his client by default.
We must, therefore, now recommend the de-
PENDANT to remove Lawyer Conkling from the
case, rs he has already removed the "bloody
chasm" pleader, Boutwell,. Better that Grant
should be without counsel than in careless
or incompetent hands. The Judge of
the high court Of public opinion--the
independent press-is bound to listen
calmly and impartially to the case and to sum
up in accordance with the law The jury of
the whole American people will weigh the
evidence carefully and give an honest and just
verdict. AS State after State comes in we
shall hear rumors of how the jury is going;
but the case will not close until
November, and in the meantime we tell both
parties to the suit that the result is still in
doubt, and we advise the defence that it will
be wise to obtain the services of more dis
Greet and competent lawyers than have yet
pleaded on that side. ~