Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 10.pdf/139

 n8

Jefferson, profound as a lawyer, skillful in forensic debate as on the floor of the con vention of 186 1, a brave soldier and an able secretary of war, the esteemed and honest George Wythe Randolph, whose last speech upheld the conscription act in Burroughs v. Peyton; the fertile and resourceful lawyer, in all branches, but the prince of criminal advocates, William W. Crump; the solid, for cible and learned jurist, James Alfred Jones; Robert Ould who was gifted with an intellect brilliant and profound, with an eloquence persuasive and cogent, with learning more broad than technical, yet skilled in all the arts of accurate and expert practice, and a,patriot whose service in the war in his important duty of exchange of prisoners deserves the highest praise for its sagacity and prudence, for its firmness tempered with mercy, and for honorable and able diplomacy. As a gentleman and a friend, who that knew him can ever forget him who stood, without a superior in public favor for twenty years,— John M. Patton. He had been distinguished in Congress, and had cultivated the art of public speaking there and on the hustings, as well as at the bar. He had wit, humor and invective, delivered with an earnest, almost passionate vehemence which in con nection with his compact and aggressive argument placed him in the front rank of advocates at the bar of the ancient capital." Alexander Hugh Holmes Stuart was born in Staunton, Va., April 2, 1807. He was educated at William and Mary College and the University of Virginia, and in 1828 began the practice of law. Mr. Stuart is described in youth, as six feet four inches in height, with brilliant dark eyes and hair as dark as the raven's wing, a full, rich and melodious voice, a fund of exuberant spirits and spark ling humor. When I met him his hair had long been grey, but his eyes still twinkled with merriment and kindness and he was a most charming, courtly, elegant gentleman. A prominent Staunton lawyer said : — "Mr. Stuart's learning as a lawyer was

deep and comprehensive. He relied more upon general principles than adjudicated cases. For'the minor technicalities of the law, his mind had but little affinity, and he made no affectation of special learning as to them. Such was the scope and character of his mind that he sought, when these technicalities were in his way, to avoid their effects by an overwhelming presentation of his case on its merits, rather than by an array of counter technicalities. As an ad vocate he was unsurpassed, if equalled, by any of his contemporaries. When in the prime of manhood it was difficult for a jury to resist his eloquence." In a splendid sketch of Mr. Stuart, Mr. Alexander F. Robertson, tells the following anecdote : — "On one occasion Mr. Stuart was defend ing a young man in the United States Dis trict Court at Staunton. The case made out against his client was a very weak one, but the district attorney magnified every circumstance of the most trivial nature, as though they were confirmations strong as proof of holy writ. Mr. Stuart requested some one who was sitting next to him to go out and bring the Pickwick Papers, and he read the celebrated speech of Sergeant Buzfuz, to the intense amusement of the Court, jury and bystanders. The district attorney was badly discomfited and the jury promptly rendered a verdict of' not guilty.'" He was a delegate to the Young Men's National Convention, which met in Wash ington city in 1832, in the interests of Henry Clay. In 1836 he was elected to the House of Delegates, and Mr. Robertson gives Mr. Stuart's own description of his journey to Richmond. "I left my house in Staunton, in the stage, at two o'clock in the morning, and after a laborious day's travel, walking up the moun tain at Rockfish Gap, and, after we got into the red lands of Albemarle, occasionally assisting in prying the coach out of the mud with fence rails, we arrived at Charlottesville after night. The second day we left Char