682
THE GREEN BAG
obtained a cursory and superficial acquaint ance with the questions of fact and law to be tried or discussed, and who trust to their intellectual acumen and power of expression to enable them to properly present the questions to court or jury. When Mr. Carter appeared in court, he was thoroughly saturated with his case, and his presentation of it was orderly and vig orous. He had an impressive personality, a powerful but pleasing voice, a copious vo cabulary, and an elegant diction. He sel dom hesitated for a word or a phrase, and seldom failed to use the particular word, or phrase, which most clearly and forcibly conveyed the meaning which he desired to express. He excelled in trenchant denunciation of wrong or injustice, and when his "righteous indignation" was aroused he thundered his invectives with leonine ferocity. While not lacking in a sense of humor, he seldom in dulged in badinage or jest. He was, per haps, too much inclined to disdain the use of these lighter — but frequently most ef fective — weapons of forensic debate; he was not ready in playful repartee, though he could deal a heavy blow with the "retort courteous" on occasion. To him, the con tests of litigation in the courts were very serious and earnest matters in which the cause of justice or the interests of juris prudence were at stake, and he was disposed to resent anything which turned the atten tion of the court or the jury away from what he regarded as the main issue of the case. In one respect this might be said to be a defect in his equipment as an advo cate; but it was a defect which won the respect and admiration of his brethren of the Bar, and of the judges upon the Bench. There have been, and are, other great ad vocates who have combined with learning, ability, and the highest type of forensic eloquence, a keen sense of humor and trench ant wit, which have added to the force, as well as enlivened the interest, of the forensic contests in which they have been engaged.
Mr. Carter's personality, however, was such that in his case it would have seemed almost out of place for him to make use of the lighter and brighter side of the art of advocacy. Nor did he avail himself to any consider able extent of the ornaments of rhetoric to embellish his oral presentation of the case. His arguments were clear, lucid, and vigor ous, with an occasional apt illustration, and now and then a touch of irony, but wholly devoid of anything like metaphor or rhetor ical flourishes. The intensity of his conviction as to the correctness of his own point of view with regard to the merits of a case, or with regard to the legal questions involved, was a tremendous element of strength, but it was also, occasionally, an element of weak ness. In his preparation for the presenta tion of his case in court, he frequently became so impressed with the particular aspect of the questions involved which ap pealed to his own judgment and his own sense of right, that he lost sight of other aspects of the case which might appeal to other minds, and he came into court with a preconceived and absolutely fixed opinion in favor of his own view of the case as the only logical, correct, and just view, so that he was unable and unwilling to yield a hair's breadth for the purpose of meeting or answering the views of his adversary or of the court. This intensity of conviction sometimes resulted in an apparent inability on his part to see the other side of the case, or to appreciate the force of his adversary's views, and an unreadiness to meet those views or to meet the objections of the court suggested on the argument. This -was a fault of a strong mind and a strong char acter which elicited admiration even when it interfered with practical success in the particular case in hand. His arguments were "magnificent" even where they failed in the tactical features which go to make up the elements of successful "war" in the legal contest. Mr. Carter was not an op
