Evening star., 1936-07-19
Present-day Oratory
on the Decline
BY FREDERIC J. HASKIN.

delivered at the recent national political
conventions or read some Of the texts
in their newspapers. They should treas
ure the memories fondly, as there Is little
doubt that old-faShioned oratory is on
the decline. Those convention speeches
may be swan songs. Here and there
some individual is certain to break loose
and burst into hyperbole on the hustingS,
but, by and large, oratory of the Victorian
order is a thing of the past.
This is especially true of the bar. There
was time when people hocked to court
rooms to hear great advocates address
turies. Today the crowds do not appear
SO much to hear the lawyers as to hear
the testimony of witnesses. 1t is likely
that the great increase in reading has
had much to do with this change. Afore-
time. the people obtained a great deal
of their literature orally from the lips
Of lawyers and politicians, lecturers and
preachers of the gospel. Today they are
more likely to read their literature or
hear it-or a substitute for it-over the
air waves.
One of the most famous legal tours de
force in the history of the American bar
was the argument of Daniel Webster in
the Dartmouth College case. Should Mr..
Webster appear before the Supreme Court
Of the United States today and attempt
to make such long -winded argument,
eloquent and oratorical though it might
be, the chances are that the Chief JUS
tice would courteously suggest that he
cut it short, come to the point, and save
the courts time.
When great lawyers Of today come be-
fore the courts, save in some Of the lower
courts, they talk quietly and cogently,
marshaling their facts and forcibly pre-
senting them. not by dint of shouts and
waving. but by strength Of logic and
appoSiteneSS of citations. Quick wit has
been by no means outmoded, but the old
evangelical noiSiness has.
RomanticiStS may perhaps. regret the
evolution, but business men who want 10
get things done speedily do not. They
want results, not a show. The movies.
the theaters and the radio have stolen
attention from the court room. Yet one
cannot avoid recalling the great forensic
artists of the past and the apparent mir
acles they performed. In some cases they
appeared before local magistrates not
any too we'll educated or able to judge.
There is the story of the Kentucky jus
tice of the peace who heard one thun-
derously eloquent lawyer make his argu-
ment on one side of case involving the
theft of COW. He banged his gavel and
said he had heard enough-the man had
won his case. He was demonstrated with
and told he had to hear the other side.
Reluctantly he submitted and listened to
the opposing country lawyers twinkling
brilliance. At the conclusion he de-
clared that he had been mistaken and
the decision should go in favor of the last
speaker.
But. in the past, lawyers have had TO
appear before the most learned men In
the land and before intelligent juries.
Real tests were involved. Thomas, Lord
ErSkin. although he flourished $50 years
ago. still is regarded by lawyers as one
of the greatest. if not the greatest, OF
trial lawyers. Facing hostile judges with
remarkable fortitude, he upheld common
law rights in a manner which has done
much to solidify those rights among Eng
disappearing nations.
A great contemporary of his was John
Philpot Curran, an Irishman. He rep
at d IlIIlc NllCil
lish political persecution was especially
strong. He even convinced hand-picked
juries, intended to uphold the English
view. that the Irish patriots he repre-
sented should be freed. He saved any
number of men from execution. On one
occasion. when he stood in court room
surrounded by soldiers, they ratified their
arms at some remark of his attacking the
EyOlich ovNlain1nd' "VnII
may aSSasSinate me, but you shall not
intimidate me-"
Another extraordinary Irish trial law
yer was Charles Phillips. who swayed
juries with his eloquence. Once he went
too far. A social-climbing family. living
under the patronage of rich widow. ar
ranged an engagement between the son
of the family. a naval officer. and the
rich widow. while he was at sea. Later
the old lady backed out and repudiated
the engagement. The returned son sued
for breach of promise. Phillips was re-
tanned by the dowager. In an effort to
show what farce the whole thing was.
he pictured the dashing young officer and
then the old lady. He described her as a
palsied eld-she was Sixty-five-de-
Scribed her wrinkled face, her bent form
and altogether made her out hag. He
won his case, after drawing this contrast,
but when he emerged from the court
house he was met by his elderly but
spirited client and soundly horsewhipped
by her. She did not like the description.
Rufus Choate was one of the greatest
of the Americans. He seldom lost case.
especially a damage case. He played on
the emotions of jurieS in such way
that they would grant almost any verdict
he asked. But he was somewhat en-
barraSsed on one occasion. The Amer
ican ship Missouri was stranded on the
coast of Sumatra, carrying rich con-
signment of gold. The master, Capt.
Dixey, conspired with one Pitman to steal
the gold and report that the Malay pi-
rates had taken it. They were caught
and Choate represented Dixey at the
trial. In the testimony. it was brought
out that, at first, Dixey refused to enter
the conspiracy, but at length his Scruples
were overborne by Pitman. Choate tried
repeatedly to get Dixey to say what
finally drew him into the conspiracy.
After several refusalS. DiXey blurted out
that he was convinced the enterprise was
safe because Pitman said that If they
were caught they would retain Choate
and he would get them OF II they were
caught with the gold in their boots.
Charles O'Conor was a successful trial
lawyer, but was one who more nearly
compares with the modern type He did
not employ oratory. but stuck to firm
though rather dull insistence on the
facts. When asked why he did not EMU
10 I.Sc ut ho har Of III