The
Vol. I.
No. 4.
Green
BOSTON.
Bag.
April, 1889.
SIDNEY BARTLETT. SINCE the days of Simon Bradstreet, who was Governor of Massachusetts in his ninetieth year, our State, and doubtless our nation, has seen no such example of a life prolonged far beyond the ordinary term of years allotted to man, and yet retaining its mental and physical activity to the last, as that of Sidney Bartlett. Scarcely two months have passed since his tall vigorous form was seen upon our streets, and in the ripeness of his intellectual vigor he stood in his place within the bar of the Supreme Judicial Court, and argued a case with a clearness of utterance and a profoundness of thought which might well be envied by any of his associates. And yet he was then ninety years old. Certainly in this respect he was unique in the legal profession, not only of this country but of the world. Sidney Bartlett was born Feb. 13, 1799. He was the son of Zaccheus Bartlett and of Hannah, his wife, and was a native of Plymouth, in this State. He was a lineal descendant of Robert Bartlett, who came to Plymouth only three years after the first settlers set foot upon the famous rock. In his character were readily discovered those sturdy traits which so distinguished the Puritan settlers of New England. At the early age of nineteen he was grad uated at Harvard College. Among his class mates were Rev. Samuel Barrett, D.D., Prof. G. R. Noyes, and J. H. Ashmun, who were known to the past generation of Bostonians. Hon. Francis Brinley, of Newport, Rev. Warren Goddard, and Rev. F. A. Farley of his classmates still survive. After graduation he studied law with Hon. 19
Lemuel Shaw, and in due time was admitted to the bar. He was at once taken into partnership with his instructor, and the two were associated together until the partner ship was necessarily dissolved by the appoint ment of Mr. Shaw to the exalted position of Chief-Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court. Mr. Bartlett early became one of the lead ers of the Suffolk Bar, and for many years was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States as one of the ablest, if not the ablest, of the distinguished lawyers of the qountry who argued causes before that tribunal. He was thoroughly read in the literature of his profession, and, as a legal reasoner, grasping legal principles and apply ing them to the facts of the case in hand, he was without a superior in this country. His preparation of a cause was absolutely ex haustive of all that was germane to the questions involved. He seemed thoroughly to enjoy, as well as to master, the subtlest legal logic; but he rarely allowed his sound judgment to be obscured by any subtlety, however refined. He was terse, and seized upon the strong points in his case with an intuitive mental touch which enabled him to press them with immense power. He did not treat the minor considerations with neg lect, but he considered them subsidiary. He did not allow them, as is sometimes the case, to weaken the force of his argument. Judge E. Rockwood Hoar has said of him : "It has always been the habit of his mind to perceive with absolute clearness the principles upon which the decisive questions of a case must turn, and to confine his argument closely and
