argument are _very copious_. Those of Colonel Burr's are _limited_, in
this way--"Burr for plaintiff, I. The great principles of commercial
law which apply to this case are"--then follows a hiatus of some
lines. After which, as follows:--

"II. The plaintiff"--another _hiatus_.

"III. !!!!!" and this concludes all I can find.

Hamilton's eloquence was (if I may be allowed the expression)
_argumentative_, and induced no great elevation or depression of mind,
consequently could be easily followed by a note taker. Burr's was more
_persuasive_ and _imaginative_. He first enslaved the _heart_, and
then led captive the, _head_. Hamilton addressed himself to the _head_
only. I do not, therefore, wonder that Burr engrossed all the
faculties of the hearer. Indeed, I have heard him often at the bar
myself, and always with the same effect. I do not recollect, in
conversation, any particular allusion of my father's to Burr's
argument in the case of Le Guen _vs_. Gouverneur and Kemble; but I
have frequently heard him say, that of all lawyers at the bar, Burr
was the most difficult to follow in the way of taking notes. Yet Burr
was very _concise_ in his language. He had no pleonasms or expletives.
Every word was in its proper place, and seemed to be the only one
suited to the place. He made few or no repetitions. If what he said
had been immediately committed to the press, it would want no
correction.

Yours respectfully,

J. V. N. YATES.