it was a sufficient answer for John to. an swer, " They were brother David's ways." But while much alike in some mental tex tures, they were in others, and in physical attributes, curiously dissimilar. David was of slight, slender build, and almost effemi nately graceful. John's physique was heavy and athletic — these qualities of person in creasing with age. David's voice was insinuative, soft and winning — that of John was Boanergian and aggressive. David's presence suggested a man who could be effective with foils; that of John, one who could succeed with the gloves. In legal play, David did fencing to perfection; while John could floor an antagonist and drive him to the corner, where the attorney was a quasi bottle holder. While yet a law stu dent a severe illness deprived the younger brother of his luxuriant, clustering and curl ing flaxen hair, so that he resorted to a wig that was a copy of the natural growth. It appears in the annexed picture, for when he became a septuagenarian the fashion and shade of the wig had not varied. Whenever it was renewed its youthful character re mained, and so often gave him to strangers an anomalous and odd appearance. Un like David, John did not possess diplomacy in his methods; yet his blows as an ex aminer or a speaker displayed craft. David was something of an actor, and was effective at simulation, and as a personator of the client's wrongs or advantages. John was too frank, blunt and natural to be even an imitator of his brother in the foregoing re spects. David's manner in the court room might remind of such blandishments as are recorded of Philpot Curran and Sergeant Hill; that of John would suggest Brougham or Ballantyne. Both inherited a love and habit of truthfulness from their clerical sire. Judges took for granted their accuracy of statement or citation, however differing from their conclusions. Either could have joined with the old traditional Bay State lawyer who in the orisons of his old age thanked
Heaven that he had never intentionally de ceived a client or a court. Great lawyers well differentiate between stratagem and chicanery, or between gratia argumenti and positive, if politic, fibbery. I once heard John Van Buren say that the_ most accom plished and successful blackguard was he who had once been, but had ceased to be, a gentleman. Very often John Graham's aggressiveness in what I may call the judi cial P. R. came very near breaking down the ropes that divided the gentleman in the fight from the bully. David's advocacy was oftenest sought where politic handling of facts was indispensable; that of John in cases where severe attack was advisable. To use a military illustration, David's plan of legal battle was a Marlboro or Welling ton one; that of John was Bonapartish, or & la Grant at the taking of Fort Donaldson. David often succeeded in a desperate case by tact, and John as often lost for the want of it. The latter's methods were cyclonic; and when the cases demanding that atmos phere in court rooms were brought to him he was generally successful. Woe be to the witness who was deceived into the play of prevarication by the smooth glidings and snakelike charm of David's manner under cross-examination; and equally woe to him in the witness chair who undertook to fence with the vigilance and terrific onslaughts of John Graham. Both brothers were enthu siastic; but David could veil his enthusiasm, while John could scarcely ever control it. He was always like the statesman who ex claimed, " My country, right or wrong!" for with John always it was " My client, right or wrong"; and yet he never believed any client to be wholly in the wrong. He would not think, however, of imitating the tactics for which Charles Phillips suffered at the British bar in the Courvosier-Russell cause eclcbre. Whenever David lost a case he was philosophic over it; but when that legal misfortune happened to John he seemed to take it as a personal insult that
