The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-04-12

from what was morally WITHOUT uOuDt u
just conviction and sentence was highly
exasperating, though Mr.. Strong insists
that the opinion Of the court. written
by Judge Allen, made a clear legal
case and that the decision was an
exemplary act Of judicial courage. or
the members Of the old and Of the re-
organized court he retains clear recol-
lection and gives Interesting accounts.
Doubtless the greatest character"
among them was Martin Grover, a
man who gloried in and perhaps to
some extent affected rugged and
homespun appearance and address.
When, after taking possession of their
new quarters in the new Capitol at
Albany, the Judges determined to live
UP to their surroundings by assuming
gowns. It was commonly remarked that
II Judge Grover had survived TO see
that day no human power would have
induced him to assume that judicial
forgery. In fact IN his time he was 80
careless OF appearances that once. when
he was suffering from a tight boot. the
bar was amused by observing "the chan
cellor's foot" protruding beyond the
end Of the bench, clad in blue woolen
stocking. There are many good stories
OF him. some OF which Mr.. Strong tells.
One which he does not tell relates to
the period OF Growers practice In An
gelica, and sets forth how a neighbor
who aspired to the Legislature called
upon him to invoke his influence
Growers reply was: "Wahl, young man,
hain't much of an opinion of you;
but I'll tell you what I'll do. II you'll
promise me that you won't steal after
ynt IN IN lNa hatv 60
there" His caller drew himself UP
with dignity and responded: Judge
Grover, ! so to Albany unpledgcd, or
| don't go AT ALL"
There have been characters" as we'll
as men Of learning on the bench Of the
Appellate Division, perhaps the most
characteristic Of them that mobile
savage" Chief Justice Van Brunt. whose
judicial usefulness does not seem to
have been seriously or permanently
impaired by the circumstance that
while already on the bench he for some
years abode in a condition OF contempt
Of court in respect of his conjugal re-
lations. TO the horror Of old fashioned
lawyers OF thar now rather remote
period. But Mr.. Strong goes back
further yet, to the days OF the Tweed
Judges" Barnard and Cardozo. of
whom the former had plenty Of char
acter. such as It was, and the latter
none whatever OF any kind.
Doubtless Barnard did deserve the
fate which befell him Of retirement
from the bench In disgrace. But II Is
not too much to say that he was really
regretted by a considerable portion of
the bar. His outrageousness was ac-
conpanied by and was really IN some
measure the result Of the general I'M
conventionality and the particular con-
tempt for technicality which endeared
him To lawyers who had meritorious
cases, even with technical holes in
them. There IS something here about
his brother. Joseph F., who long sur
vived George G's disgrace but who
partly shared his unconvent!onality
and who was Judge for the Second
Judicial District what time George q.
was adjoining the bench OF the First.
1t IS OF this period that the story used
to be told how Joseph +. was showing
George q. over the then new court
house In Brooklyn and came upon an
apartment OF which the Manhattanese
tur.st inquired the use. why, this
Is our consultation room. Don't you
have consultation rooms in New York;"
NO. responded George, with great
scorn, I'VE hand In our opinions. and II
they don't concur we don't care
damn" Upon the whole Judge Barrett
seems 10 have been the trial judge who
most OF all excited tho admiration OF
this reminiscent. who. however. gives
laudatory estimates OF others. There
are interesting recollectloas and esti-
mates OF the giants VINO We're a. the
bar In those days, such giants as
William NJ. Evarts and Charles O'Conor
and John X. Porter. II is incident to
Mr.. Strong's time OF life and expe-
rience that he should Re given 20 lau-
dalton OF past time. though one judges
from his volume that he Is OF cheer
ful turn of mind and still capable OF
enjoying his meals IIc does pretty
clearly make II out that. whether more
gigantic or more dwariish, the lawyer
of to-day Is different from the lawyer
Of his beginnings. and the practice OF
the law altogether different, distinctly
more specialized and distinctly more
"commercialiZed." Perhaps the main
loss. from the point Of view OF the In
tellectual voluptuary. Is that OF elo-
Quencc. OF course, the rhetoric. such az
1t is, and tho logic. such az It ~. Of the
old Fashioned Jury lawyer" are still
IN as much demand az ever they were.
But the keen intellectual delight OF fol-
lowing an advocate Of the high class
in an argument before a high tribunal
which would stand no appeals lad cap
tandum vulgus" but which appreciated
to tho full the faculty of luminous ex-
position brought to bear upon a COM
plicated case in extempOrized words. ex-
pressing, however, matured thoughts,
it seems that that delight IL no longer
TO be afforded to the intellectual volup-
tuary How could II be, when MI.
Strong tells US that the present prac-
tice is to send up some young man
from the office" 70 make some perfume
tory remarks and submit a brief?
However that may be. Mr.. Strong has
written book most entertaining to
those who are familiar with It's subject
matter and most instructive to those
who are not.