paper connected with his causes was in the first place multiplied into numerous copies, and then abstracted or condensed into the smallest possible limits, but no material point or idea was by any means to be omitted. His propensity to condensation was a peculiar trait in his mind. He would reduce an elaborate argument extending over many sheets of paper to a single page." Aaron Burr came to the bar at a very favorable time; the courts were crowded with business; almost every principle of law had to be settled, and most of the former leaders of the New York bar were excluded from practice in the courts because they had adhered to the Tory side in the Revolution. Up to this time no case had been reported in the thirteen States, conse quently there were no written decisions to cite, no precedents to follow, no rules to guide the court and counsel. Every legal point bearing upon each individual case had to be argued every time. Burr's memory, which was wax to receive and marble to re tain, gave him an immense advantage in the practice of the law. As already mentioned, he enjoyed a large and lucrative business, estimated at ten thousand dollars a year, which was a very handsome income in those days. His remarkable success at the bar was not the result of flowery declamation, impassioned eloquence, or the rhetorical beauty of his language. He used plain, solid, concrete language, depending for suc cess upon a clear presentation of the strong points in his causes. Burr's style as a speaker was like that of Sallust as a histo rian : his sentences were terse, his language choice, but plain, so that every person could understand him. Hamilton was more like Cicero : his language was full, flowing, orna mental and impassioned. It was said that Hamilton's eloquence in duced a great elevation or depression of the
mind, consequently could be easily followed by the note-taker. Burr's was more persua sive and imaginative. He first enslaved the heart, and then led captive the head. Hamilton addressed himself to the head only. Yet Burr was very concise in his lan guage; every word was in its proper place and seemed to be the only one suited to the place. He made few or no repetitions; if what he said had been immediately sent to the printer, it would have wanted no cor rection. Burr's definition of the law — "whatever is boldly asserted, and plausibly maintained," — was pointed, if not true. He lived up to this cynical maxim in his own practice of the law, and was the most successful lawyer of his time. Aaron Burr never displayed so much legal knowledge and talent, so much energy and activity, as during his trial for treason, at Richmond, Virginia, in 1807. Some of the greatest lawyers in the United States were engaged in that trial, — Luther Martin, Wil liam Wirt, George Hay, Alexander M'Crae, Edmund Randolph and John Wickham. In this group of legal giants, Burr was the real leader of the defence. He was consulted before any step was taken; not a motion was made, not a point yielded without con sulting him. As usual, his manner was calm, dignified, polite, impressive. The volumi nous report of this celebrated trial shows with what transcendant ability he displayed day after day, and hour after hour, through that long, bitter, vindictive prosecution, in which all the power, resources and influence of the President of the United States were employed to hound one man to death. This same record shows no less clearly the man's rare fortitude, remarkable courage, and exquisite patience. Jefferson, having committed himself to the declaration that Burr was guilty of treason.
