John K. Porter. Journal " an article contrasting the traits and talents of the three very distinguished men who took part in that notable case. Probably many readers of the present day have not seen this, and others have for gotten it. I shall therefore quote that arti cle in full, in the hope that it will not be found too long, and that it will be accepted in the place of any more particular observa tions by me. THREE GREAT ADVOCATES. Sundry of our newspapers, in the course of comments on the Beecher-Tilton case, have an nounced that forensic eloquence is dying out in this country. It is a significant commentary on this opinion that three of the four leading counsel on this trial should have proceeded to deliver three of the finest addresses ever heard at the bar. It reminds one of Dr. Lardner's prediction that the ocean could never be navigated by steam; almost while the doctor was speaking, the first steamship successfully crossed the Atlantic. Our own opin ion of the matter is that forensic ability is much more general than it was a century ago, and that the eloquence business is no longer monopolized by a few shining men. If you fill up the valleys in a hilly country, the hills will disappear; so able and eloquent lawyers are not so noticeable as formerly, because the general level of the bar has been raised. However this may be, it must be con ceded that the three advocates who have just summed up the great scandal trial would be re markable lawyers at any bar. Their conduct of the case makes us proud of our profession; and we more than ever wonder at the capacities of the human mind. The effect of continuous legal train ing is evidenced here. These three great men have conducted the most important trial of a public na ture ever held in this country, the longest of any trial on record, to our knowledge, save one, and at the close of a hundred days of evidence have delivered addresses of five, eight, and ten days respectively, — addresses which will form a part of the permanent forensic literature; and we suppose they will keep right on trying causes, just as if nothing extraordi nary had happened. They will not even have to go to Europe on account of their throats! And these addresses are no more wonderful, except in length, than scores of others which the same advo
cates have delivered, and which the newspaper men and the general public never heard of. As the writer of this has listened to the trial of many cases by two of the three advocates in question, and has a general acquaintance with the powers of the third, it may be interesting to some of our readers to have a professional estimate of their characteristics and capacities, and some com parison of their powers. We have for many years believed that as a mere declaimer, Mr. Beach stands not only at the head of the American bar, but at the head of all Amer ican orators. His oratorical style is well-nigh perfection. A presence of rare manly beauty and dignity, a voice of great power and sweetness, a vocabulary singularly affluent and sonorous, an unquenchable enthusiasm, and a masculine nobility and vigor of thought make him a great master of oratory. In regard to his elocution, Mr. Beach has but a single defect, — his gestures are con strained, awkward, and violent. As a forensic rhetorician, we think he is too level, and that his level is too high. He would gain in effect by having more conversational and familiar passages. The thunder is grand, but we don't want always to hear it. He commands, rather than persuades; and men sometimes set their faces against such advocacy. As an advocate, Mr. Beach suffers from a lack of two gifts, humor and power of illus tration, — very important defects in an advocate. In the former of these qualities he is strikingly inferior to Mr. Evarts, and in the latter to Mr. Porter. In his conduct of a case Mr. Beach is remarkably self-possessed, fertile, and courageous, but lacks tact and knowledge of human nature. We think, too, from a pretty intimate knowledge of him, that his culture is by no means so broad as that of either of his antagonists. He is not a man of many books, except law-books. Still, he is not by any means a genius; he is simply a man of the highest order of legal talents. It may be inferred from the foregoing that we do not give him the very highest place as an advocate at nisi prhts. But before an appellate court, in the dis cussion of pure questions of law, we regard him as the head of the American bar. There his grand manner, his elevated style, his noble scorn of petty arguments, and his various and profound legal learning find their proper place. This is a higher sphere than persuading juries, and Mr. Beach should addict himself to it. It is in this walk, and
