"All this may be," says the reader. "Granted that there were giants in those days, Vermont now produces no such judi cial material!" That is an admission which I could not make. I do not believe that the bar has much deteriorated in any of the New England States, though it must be admitted that the practice and legislation have. The sugges tion reminds me of a story, or rather of an observation made by a bright Vermont law yer. He afterwards became insane, poor fellow! and when I last heard from him he was contented and happy in the opinion that he was the proprietor and superintendent of the beautiful institution in which he was confined. There was a Federal judge to be appointed in the Vermont district. Aspirants were numerous, most of them very competent, with strong and active supporters. The youngest and least known of them received the nomination. A New York lawyer, bit terly disappointed that a friend whom he recommended did not get the place, com plained of and criticised Mr. Evarts, then Attorney-General, for passing over distin guished, able men, and appointing one whom nobody knew. "Don't trouble yourself about Evarts!" said my friend. " He lives half the year in Windsor, and understands the situation. He knows that he can fish up any trout-stream in Vermont, and catch a better man for a judge than he could find in your big city with Lord Rosse's telescope and a searchwarrant!" Although we were so fortunate in those days as to have the best material on the bench, we were often called upon to deal with as worthless stuff on the stand as one could find nowadays in any of our city courts. It has been my observation that a witness who on his cross-examination repeats the question asked him before answering it, is almost invariably dishonest or at least untrustworthy. In a case in which I was counsel, a fellow who called himself an expert
testified to facts which, if true, destroyed my client's claim, and in order to make all safe for his employer, he also swore to admissions of my client which were fatal. "What is your name?" I asked. "What is my name?" he inquired. I promptly set him down as a fraud, and asked him many questions, to let the jury hear his parrot-like repetitions. He fell into the trap, and did not fail to repeat in a single instance. Finally I asked, " What is your business?" "What is my business? " he repeated. "Yes! Can't you hear? What — is — your — business?" After sufficient hesitation to indicate a doubt in his own mind whether he had any business, he said, — "Rubber." "Rubber of what? " I asked. "Rubber of what? " he repeated. "Yes! Yes! Rubber of what? " I de manded. " Tell us what kind of a rubber you are?" I do not know why, but my last question completely upset the expert witness. His assurance left him, — he literally went to pieces. After this, I had no difficulty in ex posing his ignorance and his falsehoods. I remarked to the jury that they could see the lie run out of him, as they had seen it run from a leach in the home soap-making of their early lives. In one respect the lawyers of some parts of New England were remiss. They did not always cultivate the social qualities of each other. Good fellowship, respect for one another, may make our hardest drudgery pleasant. Once or twice in every year the lawyers of every county "Should gather round the table, With mirth and uproar loud,"
as we did at the annual bar supper of Addison County, Vermont. There we had in all the judges; we criticised their opinions, made speeches, and sung songs. The memory of those festivals still clings around the old
