William M. Evarts. Square, New York, or when the Bartholdi Statue of Liberty was unveiled in the harbor of that city. Here it may be appropriate to refer to him as an orator. He was never eloquent in the popular sense which applied itself to Patrick Henry, James Otis, William Wirt, Webster, Rufus Choate, and Sargent Pren tiss. Mr. Evarts lacked the emotional part of these orators, and sometimes their graces. But he was equally, perhaps more, con vincing. He never sacrificd matter to man ner. Even in conversation he was syllo gistic. His voice lacked flexibility and variety of tone. But any such deficiency was compensated by the earnest furrows of the face and the actual gesture of his eyes. It was impossible for him to advocate a bad cause. He impressed jurymen and judges with the strong fact that he ethically be lieved his assertions. Had he been St. Paul before Agrippa, I fancy that this king would have altered the Biblical saying, " with but little persuasion thou would'st fain make me a Christian," into " with thy great persua sion thou hast now made me a Christian." Therefore, for the word orator must be descriptively substituted, in Mr. Evarts' career, that of persuader, because he was eminently such. For instance, in the great Parish Will Case he was pitted against that matchless orator, Ogdcn Hoffman; but while the latter mostly delighted the judge, Evarts mostly persuaded him. The Fremont campaign of 1856 again pressed Mr. Evarts into politics. Therein he wandered into genuine emotion. The philanthropic impulses of his father were re stored to him. His objurgations against human slavery approached the region of passion. That topic was also the only one that ever inspired William Henry Seward into any semblance of passionate eloquence; and in this matter of public speech he and Evarts could be aptly conjoined for com parison as to tones and methods of utter ance. Four years later, during the Lincoln
97
campaign, Evarts' arraignment of human slavery, not only as to its sin, but its po litical impolicy, attracted universal popular attention. In that behalf he became the Charles Sumner of the Middle States. The Lincoln campaign immediately suc ceeded the occasion of one of his greatest professional triumphs. This came when a Virginian, on his way to Texas by steamer from New York, traveled with eight of his slaves in his keeping. Some philanthropic anti-slavery residents procured a writ of habeas corpus, on the claim that this planter unlawfully deprived these domestic servants of their liberty. The controversy is known at the bar as the Lemmon Case. Charles O'Conor was employed to oppose the writ, and held also a retainer from the State au thorities of Virginia. New York's governor also joined in the retainer to Mr. Evarts; and an intricate battle of State rights oc curred. Mr. O'Conor's contention was, like that of Mr. Evarts, controlled by his personal views; for Mr. O'Conor was a Calhounist, a strict advocate of the supremacy of State rights over Federal interference, and a sympathizer with the institution of slavery, both ethically, and as a matter of legal policy. Mr. O'Conor boldly argued that his client had not parted with his Virginian status as a lawful slaveholder by journeying into the State of New York, wherein a stat ute declared that any slave entering it be came manumitted, ipso facto. This conten tion, said Mr. Evarts, is absurd, and proves too much. "What," he exclaimed, "can it be that on leaving the protection of one State, its citizen can enter another, not as resident temporarily of it, but remain clothed with all the attributes of his old citizenship? If this principle is to be carried out to a full extent, then the gambler entering New York from a State where his paraphernalia and occupation were legalized, could not forfeit the tools of his illegal occupation under our statutes that confiscated them, because, for sooth, while standing on the soil of New
