The New York Court of Appeals. of the Assembly for a high breach of its privileges, for ordering the arrest of one of its members for disobedience of a sub poena issued by him as judge to appear before a grand jury. On this occasion he vindicated his right in person, and with such power, clearness, dignity, and eloquence that the Assembly impliedly acknowledged its error, and abandoned its action. Judge Potter's grand argument on that occasion will always be regarded as an unanswerable vin dication of the rights of the judiciary, and a clear definition of the boundary of legislative interference. An impudent and tyrannical usurpation of authority was never more sig nally rebuked. For this special act, and for many years of eminently useful judicial ser vice, this venerable citizen deserves remem brance and honor. Although of a very digni fied and apparently austere exterior, he has a keen sense of humor, and was always noted for his good stories and companionable quali ties. I once witnessed a very amusing ex hibition in his court at chambers. William A. Beach was arguing a motion, and the opposite attorney exclaimed " That 's a lie." The attorneys were on opposite sides of a long table, at one end of which sat the de mure judge. Beach glared at his antagonist an instant, and then started for him around the table. The offender skipped away from him at a lively gait, and after pursuing him once and a half around the table, Beach gave up the chase with a snort of disgust, and the other apologized. Both parties probabiy ex
291
pected to be called to order; but the judge took no notice, judicial or otherwise, and gazed into vacancy in a rapt manner. As it was only his manner that was rapt, and not the table, Beach saw the ridiculous aspect of the affair, and desisted. Afterward I asked the judge why he did not interfere. "Well, he said, " I thought they perhaps needed a little exercise, and that they would be more apt to feel ashamed than if I had rebuked them." During the earlier half of this period there was a remarkable lack of harmony in opinion. Dissents were extremely common and frequently formidable. It strikes one with surprise to note how many principles now regarded as well settled were originally pronounced by a divided court, sometimes by a majority of only one. In some cases, it seems to me, the weight of reputation as well as of reason was on the side of the minority. This state of things is probably inevitable in a new court, composed of strong and independent minds, dealing with novel and debatable propositions. The court grew more harmonious as it became older and more stable in its composition. The early reporters of this period — Selden, Comstock, and Kernan — were great lawyers, and their reporting is among the most ad mirable in the history of American courts. The later reporters, Smith and Tiffany, were among the worst conceivable; and their work is a disgrace to the State, — prolix, inaccu rate, incomplete, inelegant, and misleading.
