eloquence whenever the occasion inspired it. Eminent as he was for professional abil ity, he was perhaps even more distinguished for his professional character. He was every inch a lawyer, thoroughly professional in mind and habit. He was remarkable for his professional bearing; a living model of professional esprit de corps. He was no wayward genius, occasionally exciting won der or admiration. He was a man of disci plined and practised talent, always equal, always efficient, bringing to every cause the just measure of ability it needed or ad mitted. He was singularly self-reliant; his powers were always in singular self-com mand. He never forgot himself or the occasion. Always great, he was greatest in jury trials. He was a study of profes sional dignity. Nothing distracted him, nothing disturbed him. He never wasted a word or a gesture. His conduct of a cause seemed like a piece of accomplished acting. And, at times, he may have seemed artifi cial. But his efforts were always earnest and thorough. Weighty in thought, chaste in language, graceful in manner, he habitu ally illustrated his own conceptions of pro fessional carriage. He has left vivid in all our minds a very distinctive professional memory, which will never leave us in life. Quis nostrum ta1n animo agresti ac duro fuit, ut illius morte nupcr non commovereturt Qui, cum essct sencx mortuus, tamcn, propter excellentcm artem ac ventestatem, videbatur omnino mori non debuisse." This estimate of the lawyer, coming from the lips of his ablest and most vehement antagonist in the trial of causes, can be accepted as a fair and just measure of Mr. Arnold. But there is other testimony which corroborates this view. A living member of the Milwaukee Bar, who knew Mr. Arnold during the last fifteen or twenty years of his life, says: " Mr. Arnold had no supe
rior as a jury lawyer during his time. He excelled, particularly, in criminal practice. He had the happy faculty of not ' shooting ' above the heads of the jury. He was the acme of professional honor. He was an exact man. His pleadings were prepared with great accuracy, and rarely were changes or interlineations necessary. He was not a verbose man. He did not speak for the applause from the galleries. Yet, when he had anything to say, he could say it, and say it well. He was, essentially, a man of ideas." Another Milwaukee lawyer who used to meet Mr. Arnold in the trial of causes, has said : " Mr. Arnold was logi cal, graceful and polished in diction, but able, with consummate art, to suit expres sion to the mental capacity and culture of his hearers. He was a serious man, rarely, if ever, did I see him smile. While he was grave he was also earnest. His oratory was often impassioned. But he«was most skillful in the examination of witnesses and adroit in the art of winning the confidence and sympathy of an unsuspecting jury. When he spoke he always had something to say, something worth hearing." His learning, outside of the law, was of a high and commanding nature. It has been said that " no man, except the late Judge Ryan, ever practised law in Wisconsin, whose breadth of learning relating to mat ters outside of the legal profession, equalled that of Mr. Arnold." Thoughtful subjects always awakened his interest and attention. "He was stately, courtly, richly humorous or eloquent, never out of temper, pouring out such outbursts of rich speech that the jury sat dumb beneath the spell." Naturally, one whose attainments are of such admittedly high order awakens some interest and provokes the inquiry: What did he do? In what specific case or cases did his talents shine? In what follows an
