The Lexington intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1901-1949, 1904-08-13

lhllCu Va i'm AANiNN6N' ~ ASHN'SA
no severe labor for him, on occasion,
to extract from this vast storehOuse
whatever was needed for application
and use. 1t lay imbeded 10 no con-
fused mass, but 10 perfect order, at
his ready command, like the weapons
of the thoroughly equipped warrior.
l doubt If the age in which he lived
has presented reader or more
effective debater at the bar, on the
hustings or 10 the forum. In emer-
gency the fires Of his genius seemed
to light up all the channels Of his
mind and heart, so that he could lay
his hand upon every weapon stored in
the armOry of his memory for either
offense or defense. And he used them
as the MASTER of the fence, or as
IsOcrates the vexing foil.
This quality Of his mind was Strik-
ingly manifested in the remarkable
series of articles recently contributed
by him to the Philadelphia Evening
Post. Blind, beyond the capacity to
read, his emaciated body unable to
support him even in a chair, his
physical forces gone, he lay in his
bed unaided by an amanuensis, or re-
course TO memoranda, and thought out
bis subject. When his mind became
aglow with the matter, he asked for
a stenographer, the son OF an old,
cherished friend in his early life, and
in a voice so feeble that the stenog-
rapher had to sit close to the bed, he
dictated with exactness as to dates,
historical facts and Apostle quota :
ti6ns. Wubn this vas done scarcely
word or phrase needed correction or
revision.
1t was thus in court and In the
senate in respect to his memory and
accuracy. He made few notes Of the
testimony in the progress of the trial, 4,
and seldom had recourse to memo
randa in parliamentary debate, The
construction and dctiOn were so per-
feet, his words so suited to the
thought, it was indeed seldom tina
his part in days running debate ia
the senate needed revision. They
are models Of good English.
He never studied an English gram
mar, only the Latin grammar al
school. Yet what public speaker
violated less the rules of Syntax
etymology and rhetoric than he?
1t is a common mistake that in the
practice of law he was not an indus
trious student, relying more upon tht
faculty OF assimilation or intuition
than investigation and induction
While his quick perception availeC
him more than any lawyer | eve
knew, he never failed, on impOrtan
questions and occasions, to make pre-
paration and work out the law Of tn
case for himself. He knew where Il
look for the authority, and he knew
when he had found it. Genius, in hi
case, was not only the faculty o
appreciation, but, in a pre-eminen
degree, Of discrimination. Had b
, not been possessed with the create
passion for a political career, h
would have stood in the forefront
American lawyers. He was the mos
irresistible advocate before a jury
! ever heard while his power Of clos
analysis, clear logic and charmin
o eloquence made him equally formida
BILE before the bench.
His style was ornate, but withou
doridity. He eschewed all extravs
gauza, hyperbole and empty, rounde
periods, He had no model as
speaker. Elegance of diction, aptnes
= of language, the breathing though
i and burning word we're his forte.
{ In wit he was the equal of Sheridan
i in repartee as dangerous as CurraI
e and in pungent, biting invective b
j bad few superiors, Like his characteI
/ his speech was direct. There was q
e circumvention in his character
Q repetition or monotony in his speeche
He quit when he was done, and {
Is plaudits Of his audience could temI
+ him to go further. There was I
's studied art or affectation or name
's ism. He was absolutely natural. An
y there was, 10 the days of his prim
e an indehnable charm in bis voi'
IS that mesmerlze his listeners.
ri He was an intense partisan. Doub