Legal Reminiscences. experiment and the whole party went in procession to the lake to see. Light chips of wood were strewn over the surface, a big stone dropped in and the waves were pro duced. The waves moved outward fast enough, but the chips only danced up and down. Then the supporters of the lateral movement said that experiment was not fair, and pointed to the waves caused by the wind which floated the chips ashore — to which the adverse party replied that that was the effect of the wind and not of the waves. After many days' discussion and the loss of much temper, the question was referred to the mover, who was a hydraulic engineer
547
of reputation. He said " ht didn't know; if he had known, he would not have asked the question." • I do not know whether in that company the question was ever decided. I left it in the full tide of a heated discussion with all the gentlemen for disputants and all the lady guests for auditors. The incident was another evidence of the wisdom of the fathers who founded our Republic and made our consti tutions, whose opinion it was that there was no better way of deciding a disputed ques tion of fact than to submit it to a jury of the vicinage, under the charge of a competent, disinterested and impartial judge.
THE GREAT INDIA-RUBBER CASE. By Andrew Dutcher. WHILE Daniel Webster was justly called the " Great Expounder " of Constitutional law in this country, and by his services in both Houses of Congress and as Secretary of State, was recognized through out this country and in Europe as a leading statesman of his time, his ability, although not so conspicuous to the public, was equal ly shown by his forensic efforts at the bar. Among the many noted cases in which tie was engaged, and one of the most im portant, and the last that he argued, was that of Charles Goodyear against Horace H. Day, at Trenton, New Jersey, in March, 1852. The writer, then a young lawyer residing at Trenton, was naturally much interested in hearing legal arguments of eminent coun sel, and the opportunity enjoyed in this case, and the incidents occurring during the trial, are remembered with more distinct ness, and are more indelibly impressed up on his mind, than any other trial that he ever attended or is likely to witness again; and the time of a young lawyer is not easily
employed more profitably, than in attending such legal contests and listening to such arguments. The action was in equity and was brought in the United States Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey by Charles Good year, against Horace H. Day, for infringe ment of the plaintiff's patents and for an injunction and accounting, and by a decision in the plaintiff's favor, settled the validity of his patents. The case was argued before Mr. Justice Grier of the U. S. Supreme Court, and Hon. Philemon Dickerson, U. S. District Judge for New Jersey. The four counsel who argued the cause were James T. Brady and Daniel Webster for Goodyear, and Rufus Choate and Fran cis B. Cutting for Day. Edward N. Dick erson, then an ambitious and rising young patent lawyer, was attorney of record for Goodyear. Besides those named, there were many prominent lawyers connected with the case. Among them were Mr. Staples, Mr. Van
