Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 04.pdf/382

 The

Vol. IV.

No. 8.

Green

BOSTON.

Bag.

August, 1892.

JOHN K. PORTER. By Grosvenor P. Lowrey. I. I

HAVE been asked to write a short sketch of John K. Porter, who died in April of this year. The task is difficult, for reasons which apparently should make it easy. Judge Porter and I were friends from the year 1861 to the day of his death, which occurred in April of 1892. During fifteen years of that time we were partners in the practice of law in New York, and in daily and intimate association. It might be expected from this that I should have known him well; and I suppose I did know him as well as any man knew him. But when I seek to gather from my memory material to illustrate, without too much amplification and analysis, his strong and unique individuality, I find that I have no sufficiently clear hold upon him. He was a man with differing phases of character. Tliis Statement, which seems to imply vacil lations or uncertainty, must be at once quali fied by another, seemingly opposed to it, — namely, that he was a man of absolute in flexibility, and therefore with no vacilla tions; and of a certain formality in all his actions and ideals, and therefore with slight if any variation in the manifestations of himself; with absolutely definite opinions on most subjects, and with absolutely fixed principles and affections. For instance, among all the men I have known, he was most forgiving of an injury or offence. At the same time he was a relentless hater, — his hatred being tempered, however, by a Christian conscience, which forbade him to do injury to an enemy. I think he forgave where he had respect, and could not forgive 45

where he felt contempt. Ordinarily, one would not expect difficulties in appreciating the motives or the intellectual and spiritual movements, of so positive a man. Never theless, it is true that after all these years of acquaintance, I find myself diffident about making generalizing estimates of Judge Porter. A few things can be stated be yond dispute. His personal and professional integrity stood like a mountain height in comparison with the average man's fidelity. It was not possible to be more honest and faithful. As a friend, his steadfastness had no limit. As a counsellor, he was exception ally industrious, persistent, and all-believing in his client, — who, it may be mentioned, was always in the right! His case was always one which should be won. Only a few times in our association did he say to me, after a case was over, — in a sort of con fidential way, as if announcing an astound ing and incredible suspicion, — that he was "a little afraid that our client had gone too far," etc., or " had not been quite what he appeared," etc. Still, with all this faith, his critical acumen was ever at work on his case, distrusting everything and everybody, and sparing nothing in the search for exact truth, and the means by which to make it known. To reconcile such believing with such doubting is an instance of the diffi culty I find in harmonizing my views of Judge Porter's character. In some things there were " no two ways about " him. Thus, a promise was inviolable with him; and the assurance of his friendship, once obtained, was good forever. In every relation in life