Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 07.pdf/76

 Samuel J. Tilden as a Lawyer. used, he shall attempt to prove its unsound ness?" Of Mr. Tilden could be quoted the line: "I am no orator as Brutus is "; but cer tainly a succeeding line, " I only speak right on," can be appropriately quoted for appli cation. He was an impressive speaker, be cause earnest and imbued with convictions; but he did not possess graces of oratory. He was deficient in fancy and imagination, and in what dramatic critics of actors style color. He therefore was not so successful with juries as with judges. In the use of rhetoric he hammered on anvils, rather than employing the paraphernalia of gold-beat ers. He was ever a stickler for the ethics of his profession, and such was his passion for the supremacy of legal principles that he would often, to promote justice, serve with out fee or hope of reward, and accepted employment only when he was persuaded of the justice and morality of the side for which he was engaged. Upon this topic it will be appropriate to quote a communica tion by Judge Sinnott of New York : — "I entered Governor Tilden's office in 1857, and continued there until he retired from prac tice. I was admitted to the bar in 1859, and from that time forward, and even from before that time, had a very intimate knowledge of all his business, both professional and private. I do not believe there is any lawyer of prominence in this country who has given more professional services gratuitously than he did. He was a man careless of charging for any short service or ad vice, and I have known clients for years to come in almost daily and take up perhaps an hour at a time on matters where his advice saved them large sums of money, without his making any charge whatever. In no case, occurring in Gov ernor Tilden's office, from 1857 to 1872, did he ever make a charge where he had not rendered a substantial, continued, and important sen-ice, and in no case did he make a charge where the benefit accruing to his clients would not have justified a higher charge according to the ac cepted scale of prices in this city for similar ser vices. I have never known, in all that time, a single

53

iustance in which a client paid his bill unwillingly, or was otherwise than entirely satisfied, and even thankful. And no such case could have occurred without my knowledge. He never took a case on speculation nor for a contingent fee, and never until it had been first examined with a view to discover whether the person applying to him had not only the merits in law, but the equity on his side. He always manifested extreme consci entiousness and sensitiveness in regard to accept ing any professional employment where his polit ical position or influence could possibly affect the course of justice. I have never known him to appear before a public officer or a legislative or municipal body to advance any private inter est, or to assert any private claim. Not only that, but I have never known him to advise in such a case, no matter how privately or indirectly. He could have made a fortune from that class of business alone if he had been willing to enter into it. Finally, I say, as one knowing what he says, that Governor Tilden has never, since I have known him, been interested, directly or in directly, nearly or remotely, professionally in any job." When the Civil War seemed imminent, Mr. Tilden, giving an opinion to some bank ing clients, wrote strongly as a lawyer, as a politician, that nullification and secession found no color of claim in the constitution; and that coercion to preserve the Union was entirely justified by due construction of that instrument. And in his opinion he be lieved that any war struggle would be a prolonged one. About the same time he publicly disagreed with the early moder ate call for Northern troops, and believed President Lincoln should have summoned half a million volunteers. During the war he as a lawyer joined in legal opinion with Messrs. Vallandigham, David Dudley Field and Garfield (who successfully argued the famous Milligan Indiana case before the Fed eral Supreme Court), that the maxim inter anna silent leges did not apply in peaceful territory outside of martial territory, and that the trial of civilians by courts martial in Northern states was unconstitutional. He