Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 07.pdf/242

 JoJin Van Buren. unbend at times like the well-seasoned ashen bow of our ancestors." Mr. Van Buren was removed from office as Attorney-General by the operation of the State Constitution of 1846 that made it elec tive; and he then (1847) removed to New York City. He had been requested to stand for delegate to that Constitution, but had declined; for he was averse to detail, and in his profession always imposed mere details upon the attorneys associated with him. For that reason he several times declined offers to become a legislator or congress man or candidate for the Federal Senate. Nevertheless he left his impress on that Con stitution, for he was made ancillary drafts man, by reason of his experience in antirent litigations, of one provision prohibiting assemblages of disguised men, and of another limiting agricultural leases to a short speci fied term of twelve years — thereby destroy ing the long leases and semi-feudal tenures that had in operation caused the anti-rent troubles. The State reports of Nicholas Hill and Hiram Denio present many argu ments, recitals of facts, and decisions regard ing those disturbances. Arrived in New York, Mr. Van Buren formed a legal partnership with Hamilton W. Robinson, who was afterwards a judicial comrade with Chief-Justice Charles P. Daly on the bench of the Common Pleas. Mr. Van Buren could not have selected a more fitting associate. His own brilliancy, im pulse, and tendency towards what has been denominated the pyrotechnics of a nisi prius lawyer became excellently tempered with the calmness and learning that accompanied Mr. Robinson wherever he trod legal paths, and were assisted by the latter's patience and addiction to detail. " Of course you will be beaten," was a remark I once over heard addressed to a legal adversary of that firm; "the question is an open and riskful one, and you are to contend with one of Robinson's labyrinthine briefs fortified by Van Buren's adroitness, persuasive powers,

213

magnetic intercourse, and grand oratory." The observation implied a just eulogy of both Robinson and Van Buren. The text ure of the former's legal mind can be well estimated by inspecting the headnotes and marginals of Robinson's reports or his own incisive opinions. The legal firm even at starting obtained excellent business, but Mr. Van Buren be came mainly employed by outside attorneys. His first cause celcbre in New York City arose when he was employed by Edwin Forrest, the actor, in his notable suit against his wife for divorce : wherein he named famous co respondents, and among these the poet, N. P. Willis, and a famous British military of ficer. Mrs. Forrest, under the guidance of Charles O'Conor, who united in his own person the brilliancy and adroitness of Van Buren to that learning and aptness for re search and patience in detail which charac terized Robinson, retaliated with a cross suit, naming especially as co-respondent Miss Josephine Clifton, a popular actress of the period, and who had traveled with the actor as his leading lady and dramatic sup port. The trial proceeded, while popular prejudice was operating against Mr. Van Buren's client on account of his supposed engendering of the Astor Place riot that was directed in opposition to his rival, Macready; and while newspaper sympathy was with co-respondent Willis, and naturally with the lady. So far as the American pre liminary of trial by newspaper was con cerned, popular verdict had been already rendered against Forrest before the actual jury trial began. Thus Mr. Van Buren, on entering upon combat for client, and against the new issue that demanded a cross decree which at all events neutralized the plaintiff's action, was heavily handicapped. To that aspect was added a presiding judge — Thomas J. Oakley, one of the greatest jur ists New York State ever honored, yet one who insensibly to himself could be swayed by prejudice or sympathy. During the pro