Читать книгу Complete Works - Hamilton Alexander - Страница 11

Table of Contents

The case by which Hamilton is best known, because of its national importance, was that of the People vs. Croswell, which, to a great extent, established the present law of libel in the United States.

Croswell was the editor of a small newspaper called the Wasp, which he published at Hudson, New York. He subsequently edited the Balance, which was continued after Hamilton's death.

In the issue of September 9, 1802, he republished with comments an article, originally written by John Holt and published in the New York Evening Post, which reflected upon Thomas Jefferson. The objectionable matter was this: "Holt says the burden of the Federal Song is that Jefferson paid Callender for calling Washington a traitor, a robber, a perjurer; for calling Adams a hoary-headed incendiary and for most grossly slandering the private characters of men he well knew were virtuous. These charges not a democratic Editor has yet dared or ever will dare to meet in an open and manly discussion."

Callender, the person referred to, was the editor of The Prospect Before Us, published in Richmond, Virginia, and at the time he was constantly engaged in most intemperate abuse of the Federalists—and Washington, Hamilton, and others were the particular victims of his enmity; in fact he, like Freneau, was an instrument of Jefferson, and there is no doubt but that he was engaged by the latter, as has been fully proved, to libel Washington and Adams.

Croswell was arrested, arraigned, and tried at Claverack, New York, before Chief Justice Morgan Lewis, on July ii, 1802, and convicted in spite of the fact that he had announced his inability to proceed without the presence of Cal-lender, who was a material witness, and he had expected to prove by the latter the truth of the charge as set forth in the indictment—to wit: that "Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States, well knowing the contents of the said publication, called The Prospect Before Us, paid or caused to be paid to the said James Thompson Callender the two several sums of fifty dollars, one of which it seems was paid prior to the publication of the said pamphlet for the purpose of aiding and assisting him, the said Thompson Callender for the publication thereof, and the other subsequently thereto as a reward, etc."

Things looked very black for Croswell, as the judge on the bench and every one in power were Democrats and supporters of Jefferson, and prejudiced to the last degree. Even the sheriff and grand jury were of this political complexion, and were determined, not only to punish the prisoner, but, if possible, to silence the active and annoying portion of the Federal press that had done so much, up to that time, to make them uncomfortable. Judge Lewis held that the English law laid down by Lord Mansfield, to the effect that the "jury were judges only of the fact, and not of the truth or intent of the publication," this decision being in distinct opposition to the precedent fixed by the Zenger trial (the defendant also being an editor and being defended by another Hamilton'), left no other alternative but a conviction. In fact, no one could have been treated more unjustly than the unfortunate Croswell.

He had appealed to Hamilton to defend him, but the latter at first could not free himself from his other engagements to be present at the trial; subsequently, however, he argued a motion before the Court of Errors at Albany in a manner which Chancellor Kent said was the greatest effort Hamilton had ever made. "He had bestowed," said Kent, "unusual attention on the case, and he came prepared to discuss the points of law with a perfect mastery of the subject. There was an unusual solemnity and earnestness on his part in the discussion. He was, at times, highly impassioned and pathetic. His whole soul was enlisted in the cause. The aspect of the times was portentous, and he was persuaded that if he could overthrow the high-toned doctrine of the judge it would be a great gain to the liberties of this country. . . . The anxiety and tenderness of his feelings, and the gravity of his theme, rendered his reflections exceedingly impressive. He never before, in my hearing, made any effort in which he commanded higher reverence for his principles, nor equal admiration for the power and pathos of his eloquence." It is to be regretted that (Hamilton's speech, which lasted six hours has never been fully reported, although I am in possession of an incomplete report of the trial, which belonged to him, where but sixteen pages are devoted to his address.

the exclusive right of pronouncing upon the construction tendency and intent of the alleged libel, is calculated to render negatory the function of the Jury; enabling the Court to make a libel of any writing whatsoever the most innocent or commendable.

V. That it is the general rule of criminal law that the intent constitutes the crime and that it is equally a general rule, that the intent, mind or quo animo is an inference of fact to be drawn by the Jury.

VI. That if there are exceptions to this rule they are confined to cafes on which not only the principal fact but its circumstances can be and are specifically defined by Statute or Judicial Precedents.

VII. That in respect to libel there is no such specific and precise definition of facts and circumstances to be found; that consequently it is difficult if not impossible to pronounce that any writing is per se and exclusive of all circumstances libellous. That is libellous character must depend on intent and tendency the one and the other being matter of fact.

VIII. That the definitions or descriptions of libels to be found in the books predicate them upon some malicious or mischievous intent or tendency; to expose individuals to hatred or contempt or to occafion a disturbance or breach of the peace.

IX. That in determining the character of a libel the Truth or falsehood if in the nature of things a material ingredient though the truth may not always be decisive but being abused may still admit of a malicious and mischievous intent which may constitute a libel.

X. That in the Roman Law one fource of the doctrine of libel, the truth in cafes interesting to the public may be given in evidence. That the antient Statutes probably declaratory of the common make the falsehood an ingredient of the Crime; that andent precedents in the Courts of Justice correspond and that the precedents to this day charge a malicious intent.

XI. That the doctrine of excluding the truth as immaterial originated in a tyrannical and polluted fource, the Court of Star Chamber and that though it prevailed a considerable length of time yet there are leading precedents down to the Revolution and ever since in which a contrary practice prevailed.

XII. That the doctrine being against reason and natural justice and contrary to the original principles of the common law enforced by Statutory provisions, precedents which support it deserve to be considered in no better light than as malus ufus which ought to be abolished.

XIII. That in the general distribution of powers in our System of Jurisprudence the cognizance of law belongs to the Court, of fact to the Jury; that as often as they are not blended the power of the Court is absolute and exclusive. That in civil cafes it is always so and may rightfully be so exerted. That in criminal cafes the law and fact being always blended, the Jury for reasons of a political and peculiar nature, for the security of life and liberty, is entrusted with the power of deciding both law and fact.

XIV. That this distinction results:

1. From the ancient forms of pleading in civil cafes none but special pleas being allowed in matter of law, in criminal none but the general issue.

2. From the liability of the Jury to attain on civil cases and the general power of the Court, as its substitute in granting new trials and from the exemption of the Jury from attain on criminal cafes and the defect of power to control their verdicts by new trials; the theft of every legal power being its capacity to produce a definitive effect liable neither to punishment nor control.

XV. That in criminal cases nevertheless the Court are the constitutional advisers of the Jury in matter of law; who may compromise their consciences by lightly or rashly disregarding that advice; but may still more compromise their consciences by following it, if exercising their judgments with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the Court is wrong.

A part of Hamilton's time was devoted to land operations and litigation arising therefrom. His voluminous correspondence refers, not only to the establishment of the Ohio Company, but to the settlement of his own State. Much litigation, in which his father-in-law was concerned, had to do with Cosby's Manor, and with the lands originally granted to Sir William Johnson, or deeded to Robert Morris by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Sir William Johnson, who was so closely identified with the French and Indian wars, and who was such a power with the Indian "Six Nations," married one Catharine Wisenburgh, the daughter of a German emigrant. This was in 1739. Some years later he took into his house a squaw named "Molly" Brant, sister of the celebrated Mohawk Chief, Joseph Brant, or Thayendanega, with whom he seems to have spent a contented and happy life. By her he had eight illegitimate children. Many years afterward Hamilton was called upon to give an opinion regarding Sir William's will of which opinion this is a transcript:

I have examined that clause of the will of Sir William Johnson which contains a devise to his natural son, Peter Johnson, and also a subsequent clause which respects a devise over in case of the death of any of his eight natural children without issue, in connection with the fact stated to me that the said Peter died under age, unmarried and without issue, and thereupon I am of opinion that the survivors of the eight children were entitled to an estate of inheritance in the premisses before devised to the said Peter.

Alexander Hamilton,

January 25, 1796.

Toward the latter part of the year 1799, the citizens of New York were greatly excited by the discovery of the body of a young girl named Guilielma Sands, which was found in one of the wells of the Manhattan Company at the corner of Barclay and Prince Streets. She was fully dressed, and her muff was suspended from her neck. Guilielma was the niece of Elias Ring and his wife, quiet and respectable Quakers who lived in the upper part of Greenwich Street, who had several male boarders, among them one Levi Weeks. It was known that she was engaged to Levi, who was the brother of a prosperous builder named Ezra Weeks, who constructed many important buildings in the city of New York, among them the present City Hall, and later, Hamilton's country house, known as The Grange.

Levi lived, at first, with his brother at the corner of Harrison and Greenwich Streets, and afterward boarded with the Rings. For some days after the murder, which took place between eight and nine o'clock on the night of December 22, 1799, no clew could be obtained as to the identity of the murderer, but finally Weeks was arrested and indicted. He was in every way an exemplary young man, and the girl's relatives were loath to believe him guilty; nevertheless, suspicion pointed very strongly, at least, to his knowledge of the fate of Guilielma, if he himself was not actually the murderer. It was known that she was last seen with him upon the night of her death, and their voices were heard in the hallway of the Ring house shortly before she left, never to return. He was almost distraught, but could give no explanation of what had occurred. The girl's body, when found, bore abrasions, but no indication of strangulation or other violence. After his arrest Weeks engaged Hamilton and Aaron Burr, who were associated with Brockholst Livingston in the trial, while the prosecution was represented by Assistant Attorney-General Cadwalader Colden. The case was tried at the old City Hall, formerly the Federal Hall, at the north-east corner of Wall and Nassau Streets, and the site of the present Sub-Treasury building, before Mr. Justice John Lansing, the then Mayor Richard Varick, and the Recorder Richard Harrison.

The trial was exceedingly sensational and, if anything, attracted more attention than any recent proceeding. It began Tuesday, March 31, 1800, and continued several days. Burr made the opening speech, and Hamilton interrogated most of the witnesses, and summed up. It would appear that from the first the presiding justice was not convinced of Weeks's guilt, and regarded the evidence as so flimsy that he virtually directed the jury to bring in a verdict of acquittal, which they did. This, however, was most distasteful to the excited public, who were quite sure of the prisoner's culpability, and wanted him punished. It appeared in evidence that though the deceased girl, who was very beautiful, had been very intimate with Weeks, her relations with others had been decidedly promiscuous and improper; it was likely, therefore, that some of them had made away with her. Mrs. Ring's anger and violence when the verdict was brought in were intense. Shaking her fist in Hamilton's face she said, "If thee dies a natural death I shall think there is no justice in heaven." In this connection it is a curious fact that both Chief Justice Lansing and Hamilton died as she had predicted. The former was not seen alive after he left his hotel one day, in 1829, to reach the Albany boat, and his body was never found.

An alleged sensational incident of the trial, which is, however, untrue, has been referred to by several of Hamilton's biographers. It is in effect, that one of the witnesses, a man of bad character named Croucher, who was suspected of being the real murderer, was made to betray himself by a dramatic expedient devised by Hamilton, who held two lighted candles close to his face while he was on the stand during the latter part of the day. Although this witness Croucher was a lodger in the Ring house, there was no proof that he had anything to do with the crime, but he sought to throw suspicion upon his rival Weeks. The report of the trial shows that a lighted candle was simply used for the identification of Croucher.

Parton, who was Burr's biographer, has made him the hero of the story. In this connection it may be stated that Hamilton had always believed in the innocence of his client, and that he would not have taken his case had he had any doubts of his position. In fact, some of his legal associates at the time, in giving their impressions of his methods, have stated that he never entered a case simply as an advocate, but that he first convinced himself of the suspected individual's innocence, and then went heart and soul into the defence.

The field of his professional labors was no restricted one, and he was often in Albany, or again in Kingston, or Pough-keepsie, or other places, taking long journeys by river sloops, or stage-coaches, or in the saddle in company with other lawyers who followed the circuit. Much of his intimacy with Chancellor Kent grew from this close contact. In his expense-book appears a charge of four hundred dollars for eight days' work at New Haven, at fifty dollars per day, he having been employed by the State of New York. From the same source we are informed that on May 10, 1796, he received a retainer of five hundred dollars from the "United States for attendance on Philadelphia for a fortnight's work in arguing the question of the Constitutionality of the Carriage Tax."

His letters to his wife were written under the most varying conditions. He wrote from Albany, October 7, 1796, to Mrs. Hamilton at 69 Stone Street: "This moment I came from Court and I fear I shall not be disengaged from it before Saturday. Judge of my impatience by your own. I am quite well. Adieu my darling Eliza." He later said, he hoped to 'finish my business so as return on Thursday. If vessel offers at the time and a fair wind, I may take that mode of conveyance.' He again informed her from Albany of his painful detention there by the slow progress of the court, and of his extreme anxiety to be with her, and tells her he has written to her "by water to the care of Capt. Boyed. "Being engaged in court in Poughkeepsie, he refers to the excessive heat and says: "I have resolved to moderate my movements which will unavoidably occasion delay. But my Betsy will prefer my staying somewhat longer to my seriously risking my health. The Vessel passed West Point in the night so that I shall have to make that visit on my return. Have patience, my Angel & love me always as you have done. God bless you prays always yr aff. A. H."

From Hudson he writes: "I am chagrined at the prospect of being detained longer than I expected. Our adversaries have made strong efforts to postpone the cause to another circuit, and though defeated in this they have obtained a delay till Wednesday next. However disagreeable and inconvenient to me to stay, it is not possible for me in this situation to quit." This was probably during the Le Guen trial.

What has been said of his modest idea of the value of his services which was shown in the Le Guen case may be again referred to. Moreover it would appear that he would not consent to ally himself with any case that was at all suspicious, or in which his professional reputation might suffer. He evidently carried this very far if we may judge from the many endorsements to the applications that were made to him.

As an example of what is meant, the following incident may be related. One of his clients wrote to him in May, 1796:

Dear Sir: Wishing to have the benefit of your much esteemed counsel as a lawyer in important cases, if unfortunately I should be hereafter involved in any, I have enclosed you my note for one thousand dollars, payable in five years at five per cent per annum, which I beg you to accept with interest.

This was endorsed by Hamilton: "Returned as being more than is proper. A. H."

Many of his papers are also endorsed with comments which show that he would not accept employment if the interests of other clients could, in the least way, be affected by his action. In fact, he was punctilious to a degree in the matter of professional ethics.

His ideas of compensation were certainly not extravagant, especially in the beginning of his career, although it is said his professional income was considerable before he accepted the Treasury portfolio. Legal compensation in those days was paltry compared with the charges of to-day, when the return from a single great case is likely to make the lawyer rich for the rest of his life; but it must be remarked that the labors of a lawyer then were more conservative than they now are, and the modern pursuit of promotion was almost undreamed of. Specialties, too, were unknown. The hardworking lawyer of the latter part of the eighteenth century was as much at home in the criminal court as in the trial of civil actions, and it was not considered infra dig, to lend one's talents and efforts to the defence of an accused person, no matter how poor. It is somewhat curious to find, notwithstanding the dignity and conservatism of the practitioner of those days, that even Hamilton was not above a retaining or conditional fee, as the following note will show:

Johnathan Jackfon for Argument

Bamett vs. Underwriters

prepared and attending at Albany $100

If successful an additional hundred.

As a rule, his retaining fee in the many years of his practice, and even afterward, was one pound sterling, although he received many yearly retainers, for his services as counsel to several corporations with which he was connected, of two hundred and fifty dollars and more. In 1782-5 his fees were much smaller than those he received at a later date, and in the years just before his death he made from twelve thousand to fourteen thousand dollars per annum.

Some idea of his professional work and the sums received therefor may be derived from an inspection of a kind of journal or cash book to which reference has already been made.

Receipts from practice & disbursements.

1783	May 30. Isaac Sears, a retainer in a cause expected to be commenced by Soderstrom against Sears & Smith, and advice thereon at various times	£6. 0.0.
1784	May 1. Bank of New York To this fum paid Mr. Maxwell in part of a house purchased on account of the bank	£150. 0.0.
1783	Sepr. 29. Manor of Renselaerwick Drawing a memorial to the Legislature	£3. 4.0.
1785	Robert Bowne drawing a petition & respecting rents to persons within the British line	£1.10.0.
"	Nov. 30. John Murray, Advice concerning the propriety of suing a person in whose hands goods were attached	£1.10.0.
"	Nov. 25. Isaac Moses. Drawing a release of Dower	£2.0.0.
1785	Nov. Actually engrofing	0. 0.8.
"	Aug. 30. Stephen Delansey. To dead charge on the circuit in Westchester to try your ause being a critical cause, and having succeeded	£20.0.0.
"	Aaron Burr. To one half the Tavern expense of a reference between Dutcher & Vacher, paid summons	1.13.0.
"	Johannes Hardenberg. To 9 days absence to try your cause at £5 per day.	45. 0.0.
"	Retainers in suits against ten persons at £1.10 each	15. 0.0.
"	Nov. 14. To this fum received by him of Trustees of Schenectady as a Retainer	5. 0.0.
1786	Mar. 22. The agents of the Proprietors of Way-wayanda. To account for advice & services rendered this day Attending at Chester and divers attendance at New York	150. 0.0.
"	Nov. 1. The Minister of Spain to amount paid goal-keepers fees affirmed by me.	29.14.0.
	To advice & services as Counsel	37. 6.8.
"	Apr. 1st. (Mofes Hazen) for drawing a special indemnifying bond to sureties	1. 0.0.
1786	Henry & McClellan. Drawing memorial to Congress respecting Canadian affairs.	£1.10.0.
"	Executors of Desbross for arguing sucessfully a Question on citation act.	10. 0.0.
"	Aug. 10. Advice concerning Brandy left with you by Mr. Price	1.10.0.
1787	Nov. 5. John J. Van Rensslaer. To cash paid your draft on me in favour of Mr. Stevenson	80.
"	Aug. 30. Samuel Van Hyde. To council for attending circuit in your cause with Mr. Willet on trying the cause absent three days (traveling expenses, &c.	10.
1788	Rafael N. Smith. Surviving partner of Sears & Smith. To opinion concerning the estate of Isaac Sears	1.10
"	Oct. 8. Minister of United Netherlands Opinion concerning certain public certificate assigned by Benjamin Esq., Inquiries at the Treasury &c	. 3.4.
1788	Oct. 10. Cash paid A. Burr, Esquire in full of your part of J. Lloyd vs B. Snethen.-----
"	Nov. 28. To Pintard draft of Controversy with Mr. Shedden	3. 4.0.
200
"	Draft in favor of B. Walker 100 Paid bank for a note endorsed by him	200.
1795	Apr. 29. James Greenleaf opinion in divorce	$10.
"	" " concerning "	$10.
	Br. vessel captured & recaptured by her crew	$10.
	subsequent advice at different times	15.
		____
		25.
	Opinion on Revenue laws	20.
"	Ph. Schuyler & Associates Dr. to Cash	$1514.18
	for this sum paid Peter Goelet the ⅙ part of a tract of 6761 acres sold by the Trustees of the American or Ringwood Iron Co. situate in Cosby's manor payable in 4 quarters payments, 1 down, 2d 1st of April next 31 Octo'r next 4h 1st April 1797.
"	Aug. 14th. Received from Fisher for opinion
	concerning conveyance of soldiers' rights	$15.
	received from Van den Heuvel for opinion concerning abandonment	15.
1796	Jan. Opinion for Mr. Keep regarding an opinion concerning a Gang Way	10.
"	Feb'y to Dr. Lenox for opinion concerning his marriage	10.
"	Mar. 17. For this fum received of, for opinion on two policies, one respecting right of abandonment of vessel after acquittal & appeal,	$20.
	The other respecting cafe of insurance blockaded & for this fum received of Quackenbush & Ogilvie	20.
"	Letter to Th. Cazenove for opinion concerning act of Legislature respecting Land of Dutch Co.	25.
"	July 2d & 20. Th. Cazenove for opinion & consultation with Judge Benson & Mr. Jones concerning a certain act of legislature.
1796	July. 11. Le Roy & Bayard for opinion respecting conveyances from Robert Morris to Dutch Co. Guilder Messer & Co.	5.
"	Aug. 26. For attendance & trial of two ejectments in Kings County. Thos. Ten Eyck for retainer Caracci who applied to me	$15.
"	Nov. 29. Le Roy & Bayard on act of Services relating to a sale of land to Aaron Burr.	$56.
1797	Lunace Cause	$15.
	Cazenove	$500.
"	Oct. 16. Discounted with Aa. Burr by Oliver & Thompson	50.
"	Oct. 24. Dutch Co. "for inspecting several papers respecting power to James Wadsworth for a tract of land contracted for with A. Burr & Advice.	10
		___
		15
"	Apr. 5. Henry Capt for defending him on two Indictments	50.
	Opinion in writing concerning money stipulated to Indians.	25.
	Bache for trying his case	50.
1798	July 5. LeRoy & Bayard & McEvers for opinion concerning Trust for Certain Indians	10.
	Examination of Titles to a lot to be mortgaged to the Bank of N. Y., inspection of deeds, &c	20.
	Received retainer for United Insurance Co. for retainer for 1798	$250.
"	May 2. Paid Col. Jay for part of fee in cafe of Insurance in Ship Grand Turk	125.
"	Trinity Church for opinion in conjunction with Mr. Harrison	50.
"	Rec'd 1234.44 from Le Guen Paid Col. Burr	$290.
"	May 9. For opinion concerning the Acts of British Courts with districts comprehending the Western posts subsequent to Treaty of peace	50.
"	June 30. Wm. Constable for attending at his house to draw his will. & drawing it	$50.
1798	Aug. 4. Edward Gould & son for attendance twice on trials of the case of Astrea	100.
"	July term. Bill for argument & successfully, for cause against Am. & Barn.	75.
"	July term. Arch. Gracie for arguing successfully the case of the Hercules	100.
"	Dec. 18. For opinion to Mr. Cazenove concerning the effect of an attachment of Mr. R. Morris' property upon that conveyed to the Dutch Comp. etc.	10.
"	Dec. 24. Consultation on 24 with Mr. Troup & opinion concerning the question whether specie is to be considered as Merchandise	5.
1799	Louis Le Guen for attending to the arrangement of his Marriage Contract	20.
"	July 1. Alexander Macomb Dr. to Costs & fees, for opinion and advice respecting forgeries of Arnold	20.
	Bank of N. Y. Retainer in cafe of Arnold	20.
"	United Ins. Co. retainer Trial & argument fee in the Cafe of the Minerva	$75.
	Hallet & Jenks (Brig Nancy) 1800 May, for my services in their suit in Chancery respecting lands of Sir William Johnson, various consultations arguing several collateral questions arguing at final hearing & on appeal	$500.
	Ex. of Ph. Livingston for my services in their suit with Jouet	500.

An inspection of a large number of trial notes and briefs shows that Hamilton prepared his cases with great care, in which work he was usually unaided. His artistic handwriting, as a rule, was fine, but often bold, attracting the eye in places by the underscoring of words. It varies but little in character. He was never careless, and the end of a brief was as legible as the beginning. He rarely, as has been pointed out, "crossed his t's,'" and never "dotted his i's," but was scrupulous in punctuation and arrangement, and his use of English was perfect. There is, in his briefs, great freedom from corrections, indicating that when he wrote anything it was well thought out and decided upon before hand. The trial notes intended for his own use are most interesting, containing as they do frequent apt and pungent suggestions to be used in court, and are all orderly and free from redundancies. He never repeated himself, while his headings of subjects and lines of argument prepared to demolish his antagonist were progressive in their pertinency and gained in force as he proceeded. In the Le Guen trial, the little duodecimo booklet of manuscript fastened together at the back with a needle and thread contains many curious reflections, among which are the following:

FAC-SIMILE OF TRIAL NOTES IN THE LE GUEN CASE

"A man must have been a blockhead who would part with such a valuable lien knowingly," and again he says that it is "the clearest case he ever met with. We could not expect that any judge would be unwilling to be wiser today than tomorrow." He insists that he "will want no books [to convince the jury] but will appeal to principle written in the heart of man." As a compliment to the judge, under the caption of "Politesse," he says, "This- proves he did right to send it [the case] to a Jury," and again, "How necessary for those who sit in judgment, when life, fame, &c is concerned to preserve their minds cold and dispassionate." He observes satirically that there is much extenuation. "Immoral acts are not always morally wrong." And that "persons habituated to deal where verbal contracts are not attended to, merit more loose in their conversation. They will hazard more with reason." He refers to his antagonists as the "dupes of their own virtues."

He never went into court without a preparedness which is shown by the arsenal of authorities usually referred to in abbreviated titles, and enumerated on the left-hand side of the paper. Elsewhere we find long and very legible Latin quotations of which he might avail himself, as was the custom of the day.

In these times the progress of a trial is often interrupted by a recess granted for the purpose of sending out to the library for an authority. No such thing occurred in the early history of our courts, if we may judge from Hamilton's notes, and it is probable that all the lawyers of the time followed his example. The chief works referred to are Vatel, Blackstone, Fonblanque, Burrowes, Atkyns, Lord Raymond, Coke, Comyns, Grotius. Among Hamilton's own law books were the standard folios, many of which are printed in Latin. One of his English books was "Practice Commonplaced; or Rules and Cases of Practice in the Court Arranged, Etc.," by G. Crompton, which was published in London in 1783. A copy that recently found its way to an auction room bore his signature on each of ten pages, including the title-page and fly-leaf, with MS. notes on various other pages. This was one of his first books, bought by him in 1785 and used during his early years of practice.

One may almost grasp and appreciate the mental operations of Hamilton when he prepared his notes, for they today almost breathe his individuality. He freely uses the index mark, either singly or in multiple, to direct attention to points of varying importance which he is to emphasize; again, there is not only curious underscoring, but words or sentences are printed in large letters or bracketed. There are interesting comments upon the veracity of the witnesses, and his opinions of them and these are not always complimentary. In one place he makes the note to "Speak rather lightly of Doctor Baker," a witness who seems to have been guilty of concocting a plan to palm off a baby upon the defendant in a breach of promise case, and, at the same time, evidently posed as a medical expert. In another case the competency of a man is considered who "was never conceived to be deranged, but at times he was a good deal in liquor." This gentleman, however, was by another witness regarded as "very rational and pretty sociable."

Possibly, with the exception of Aaron Burr, no professional associate of Hamilton in New York can be found who withheld from him the praise which his work merited, and the tributes to his genius have been most hear and sincere. It would almost seem as if time strengthened the glory of his reputation, for with the lapse of years the rancor of political rivalry has been forgotten, and jurists everywhere to-day seem to be almost unanimous in admitting his greatness as one of the foremost of American lawyers. As an example I may quote James Broym Scott, a recent and most agreeable writer, who says," He [Hamilton] had no past of his own; he settled in a country with none, and dreamed and planned of a future for himself and country....

"And for the practice of law Hamilton was admirably fitted. In the matter of physical presence he was as favored as Lord Erskine, and he possessed a power of speech hardly inferior, it would seem, to the Scotchman. These are qualities not to be despised, but while they may make the verdict getter they do not make the lawyer. A knowledge of the history of the law added to the power of searching analysis and philosophic grasp' are essential to the lawyer in the scientific sense. In rounded completeness they make tbe jurist."

Justice Ambrose Spencer, who presided in the Anscoll case, said some years after the duel: "Alexander Hamilton was the greatest man this country ever produced. I knew him well. I was in situations often to observe and study him. I saw him at the bar and at home. He argued cases before me while I sat as judge on the Bench. Webster has done the same. In power of reasoning, Hamilton was the equal of Webster; and more than this can be said of no man. In creative power Hamilton was infinitely Webster's superior."

Chancellor James Kent, one of his dearest friends, wrote at one time: "He rose at once to the loftiest heights of professional eminence, by his profound penetration, his power of analysis, the comprehensive grasp and strength of his understanding, and the firmness, frankness, and integrity of his character. We may say of him, in reference to his associates, as was said of Papinian: 'Omnes longo post se intervallo reliquerit.'" And again: "I have been sensibly struck, in a thousand instances, with" his habitual reverence for truth, his candor, his ardent attachment to civil liberty, his indignation at oppression of every kind, his abhorrence of every semblance of fraud, his reverence for justice, and his sound, legal principles drawn by a clear and logical deduction from the purest Christian ethics, and from the purest foundations of all rational and practical jurisprudence. He was blessed with a very amiable, generous, tender, and charitable disposition, and he had the most artless simplicity of any man I ever knew. It was impossible not to love as well as respect and admire him.... He was perfectly disinterested. The selfish principle, that infirmity too often of great as well as of little minds, seemed never to have reached him. It was entirely incompatible with the purity of his taste and the grandeur of his ambition. Everything appeared to be at once extinguished, when it came in competition with his devotion to his country's welfare and glory. He was a most faithful friend to the cause of civil liberty throughout the world, but he was a still greater friend to truth and justice." In Coleman's history of the duel and funeral, numerous newspaper articles from the press of those days of persons who had, during his lifetime, been both friends and foes are recorded. None of them is more touching than the tribute of Croswell, in whose behalf Hamilton had appeared, and to which reference has elsewhere been made. Croswell was then the editor of the Balance, and after the duel said: "From the editor of this paper something more is due to the departed Hamilton than common panegyric and general encomium. This, a whole nation is bound to bestow—this, not a citizen of America seems disposed to withhold. But to me he once rendered unequalled service, apart from that rendered to his country generally. In my defence, and in defence of the American press, he once exerted his unrivalled eloquence. In my cause, this greatest of men made his mightiest effort—an effort which might have palsied the uplifted hand of power; an effort which might have carried terror to the bosom of a tyrant. For this service, voluntarily rendered, I owed him a debt of gratitude which never could be cancelled—never diminished. But, by offering my feeble aid to the support of principles which he advocated, I hoped, at least, to show my sense of the obligation under which I was laid, by his disinterested exertions. Alas! he is gone—and I have only returned him the professions of my gratitude. But 'His fame is left'—dear as my blood; my life shall be devoted to its protection!"