New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-01-26

flying himself with his client. He appealed to jury
with an air of ingenious conviction thatwas all but
irresistible. The expression of his face was hair the
battle. Who could withhold his confidence from
man whose features betokened ut once a conscieE-
tous assurance of the Justice of his and disn-
terested compassion for the folly OF his opponent IN
coming before jury Of such unusual Intelligence
with hardly legal leg to stand on and with no sup
port at all from the eternal principles OF Justlce' Ills
appearance was all in his favor. or good stature
pOrtly sedate In manner, he presented to the Jury
beautiful combination of the father of large FAM
lily and an eminent bank director. He pathetic
and commercial by turns. When he wanted the
sympathes of the British cheesemonger in
behalf of an injured wife, he knew jnst
what chords would vibrate to his touch.
When he came to tho question of damages, he
showed himself not less perfectly acquainted
with the principles on which the average luryman
habitually conducts his money calculations. NO
body was his superior in this sort OF work. Nobody
knew better than ne knew the inside of jury-box,
or the inside of what the juryman calls his MIND.
Middle class psychology had no mysteries he had not
fathomed. If he did not know something personally
of each one of the twelve he set himself to con-
vince or cajoe he worked set of general princl-
PIES the result of vast experience and he was seldom
at fault. Tact he had in largo measure; the
tact WHICH COnhl5tcu III uUJ piCoSiuF PNAhN
where he saw the Judge or jury were against
him; in not bullying witnesses; in not
wrauglng with the bench or with his - friend on
the other sde above all in not running cOunter to
any sympathi or antipathies of the jury, and TO
never rising verdict for the sake of display. The
first time Won saw him you thought you had at last
found lawyer who really had equally at heart the
interests of his client and the interests OF justice
BY the time yOu had seen him 30 through the same
performance in half q dozen cases. good ana BAD
YOU had TO renquish this pleasing delusOn, for in
every case he identified hmselfinjus the same way
with the merits or demerts of the side he repre-
sented. One does not presume TO blame him for
this lie was paid for it and earning his fee, as
his brethren earn theirs
There was not touch of genius in the man. He
bad no eloquence. His mind ran on level with
the minds of those to whom be appealed. lie took
the jury into his confidence and for very different
reasons It might be said of him as was said of man
immensely his superior, that while be was arguing
a cause there were thirteen men in the jury-boX.
But though he was not eloquent, he had continu-
Gus fuencv of speech which produced an effect. If
his vocabulary was not cOpous what there was OF
il was always az his command, and though he could
be extremely dull, he was generally smooth. Now,
in this country a man who does not break down in
the middle Of every second sentence may acquire
considerable reputation as a forensic speaker.
on his own beat he showed little ability and no
power. He was as capable Of throwing away good
case as of winning bad one. Speaking with the
difiidence which belongs to a layman, must still
say that have seen him conduct more than one
trial in a style which wOud ruin any American
lawyer. He was counsel for Mr.Whistler In the ae-
ton against Mr. Ruskin. and he committed nearly
every fault-except of manner, in which, as usual,
he was admirable-whch it was open to him IN
commit. The subject matter was so unfamiliar to
him that he had 10 fall back on his stalest
tricks, and he held up an artist of genius
TO the Jury as an object of compassion because he
was an artist and because Mr.. Ruskin had said
hard things of his pictures. He did worse than
that. lie organized an exhibition of Mr. Whstlers
works TO which the jury paid visit as experts; y;
there not being on the jury who knew sign
board from Titan. If he had simply declined TO
produce picture and said. Gentlemen, for the
purposes of this case admit Mr.. Whistler to be the
worst artist in the world but | ask for a verdict
because Sir. Ruskin, instead of crticising Mr.
Whistler's paintings, las lbelled Mr.. Whistler" he
would have got a verdict. G.w