illustrious instances of our day, are Webster of the North, and Berrien of the South." Says Dr. Baer: " There is, I think, a gen eral impression, that Mr. Preston was a lazy, pleasure-loving man, who did very little hard work of any kind, trusted to his genius, was incapable of wise and profound thought, and delighted rather than convinced and instruct ed his hearers. To correct this false esti mate, the best plan is to study the skeletons of the great arguments made by him before our court of last resort, which are to be found in our State Reports. "On those occasions, he wrestled with Pettigrew and other legal giants, and it is evident they found in him no light-weight, but a foeman worthy of their steel. These notes of argument demonstrate that he was a great and original thinker, and a lawyer who came to the fight with the fullest and most painstaking preparation." Mr. James L. Petigru speaks of him as one " formerly eminent among the lawyers of South Carolina." Chancellor Dunkin calls him, "an able law yer," and Judge Glover says that he " illus trated all that distinguishes the barrister, statesman, and orator." Ex-Governor B. F. Perry, in his "Reminiscences," says: "In his arguments on the circuit and in the Court of Appeals, he proved himself an able logician as well as a brilliant rhetorician. No law yer argued his cases with greater ability, or was more successful in his practice." Mr. Preston had a number of the qualities that go to make a good lawyer. In the first place, he was a splendid orator. In the sec ond place, he was a practical style of man, and not a mere theorizer. He had a fine knowledge of human nature — understood the motives which influence and control men. In the third place, he was a man of good logical powers and was not at all defi cient in argumentative ability. On the criminal side of the court, and as an advocate, both on the criminal and civil sides of the court, Mr. Preston was a great
success. He could present a case with great ability. He knew how to argue the law to the court and especially did he excel as an advocate before the jury. ' I doubt very much, however, if he was very fond of read ing the dry pages of the law. I have no idea that he liked what we term black-letter law. The rule in Shelley's case, contingent remainders, executory devises, and con ditional limitations, he may and doubtless did study; but they could hardly have been congenial to his taste and temperament. Judge Story says that when he first com menced to read law, he found it exceeding ly dry and uninteresting: but that he kept on, and that after a while he took a delight in what at first was tedious and boring be yond measure. Mr. Preston could hardly have reached this second stage referred to by Judge Story. His mind had been distracted from his pro fession. He was engaged too long in poli tics. And then besides, as I have already said, I do not suppose he had any disposi tion or turn for poring over the pages of a law book. He would much rather spend his time reading Cicero's orations, Macaulay's essays, or Scott's novels. After all we are made upon different lasts. What suits one does not suit another. You cannot make a Calhoun out of a Preston. God made men with diversities of gifts. And now I have reached the culminating point of Mr. Preston's character — the climax of his life-work, — his matchless oratory and splendid statesmanship. His superb form, his commanding presence, his brilliant dic tion, his beautiful imagery and charming rhetoric, his short, striking sentences, and his magnificent flights of eloquence, have won for him a reputation as an orator that has never yet been surpassed in the annals of American eloquence, have caused his name to be enrolled on the pages of history, graced with the appellation, "The Inspired Declaimer," and have so exalted his fame as an orator that even to-day, when we would
