Legal Recollections.
295
A NEW VOLUME OF LEGAL RECOLLECTIONS. HENRY LAUREN CLINTON, who was admitted to the New York Bar precisely half a century ago, has just pub lished in a volume of four hundred sumptu ous pages his legal recollections, under imprint of the Harper Brothers; and from it the Green Bag has collated some of the anecdotes, feeling sure that a taste of Mr. Clinton's reminiscences will inspire its read ers with a desire for the book itself. Mr. Clinton, now a septuagenarian, has re tired from active practice at nisi prius, where he was always primus inter pares, but he continues his legal affiliations as a jurisconsult. He is a man of fortune solely through his professional experience, and is recognized by the New York City Bar as having re ceived as counsel, toward sustaining the contested will of the late Commodore Cor nelius Vanderbilt, the largest fee known in its local annals — a quarter-million of dollars. Mr. Clinton's earliest bar recollection was of a five hours' argument made by Daniel Webster when the narrator was a law student in 1845. The great American Commoner made contention that the City of New York was liable for damages to private owners whose houses, by municipal order, gunpowder had blown up and destroyed in order to arrest progress of a great confla gration. Mr. Webster's figure, voice, ges ticulation, logic and eloquence are referred to by the one adjective majestic. The listening court was the former hybrid Court of Errors composed of four judges of lower courts and state senators, most of whom were laymen. The occasion was a reargument, or a substantial appeal to the same court to reverse a prior decision against the liability of the city that had been obtained by a majority of five — the judges in the 'Extraordinary Casrs, by Henry L. Clinton. Harper Bro»., New York.
minority; but the majority, composed of lay men, sympathizing with the city tax-payers, who dreaded being mulcted in enormous damages. After the Websterian argument, the orator was alleviated of his exhaustion by a luncheon at which he was compliment ed for his marvelous effort, when he replied, " Gentlemen, I was uncomfortable during the delivery of my argument, for to speak frankly, I felt as if I were addressing a packed jury." And substantially he had been; for the laymen abided by their previ ous views. It was the curious position of laymen in. that court being able for political or economic reasons to overrule judges that during the following year procured the State constitution to be amended so as to substi tute lawyers exclusively. During the Web sterian argument Chancellor Walworth, who was apt always as an auditor on the bench to degenerate by interruptions the argument into an aggravating, discursive and conver sational warfare, evidently deterred by Mr. Webster's majesty of demeanor, only once interposed a question to him and a question rather irrelevant. Mr. Webster paused with the look of a lion when interrupted in his lair by a hunter, and with a few calm, dignified, and semi-scornful sentences froze the Chan cellor into a silence never again broken. An anecdote is added as to the discomfiture of Walworth on another occasion, when the latter interrupted an arguing counsel with, "You are all wrong," when counsel re marked, " I could not find reason for author ity for any other course." "Then you should have consulted coun sel who might have put you right.' Rejoined the arguer with charming irony, "Unfortunately, since your honor went upon the bench there has been no counsel at the bar to whom I could have applied in order to receive the advice you now award me."
