"He was indefatigable," says another legal friend, "in business, as he
had been in his previous studies, and no lawyer ever appeared before
our tribunals with his cause better prepared for trial, his facts and
legal points being marshalled for combat with all the regularity and
precision of a consummate military tactician. No professional
adversary, it is believed, has ever boasted of having broken or thrown
into confusion the solid columns into which he had formed them, or
having found void spaces in their lengthened line, or to have beaten
him by a _ruse de guerre_ or a surprise.

"He never heeded expense in completing his preparations for trial;
and, while laborious himself to an uncommon degree, he did not stint
the labours of others, so far as he could command or procure them.
Every pleading or necessary paper connected with his causes was in
tile first place to be multiplied into numerous copies, and then
abstracted or condensed into the smallest possible limits, but no
material point or idea was by any means to be omitted. His propensity
to concision or condensation was a peculiar trait in his mind. He
would reduce an elaborate argument, extending over many sheets of
paper, to a single page. Had he written the history of our revolution,
which he once commenced, he would probably have compressed the whole
of it in a single volume."

In his professional practice, he never solicited from an opponent any
favour or indulgence any more than he would have done from an armed
foe; but, at the same time, rarely withheld any courtesy that was
asked of him, not inconsistent with the interest of his clients. He
was a strict practitioner, almost a legal _martinet_, and so fond of
legal technicalities, that he never omitted an opportunity of trying