the preparation of the case. Equally honorable and laborious duty, however, occupied him at home. He was elected in 1871 at the head of the Republican ticket as a member of the Constitutional Convention of 1872-3, and was elected, by the unanimous vote of the Convention when they assembled, their President. He gave himself unreservedly to the great work committed to this body, and worked assiduously with it until his last illness in June, 1873, when he appointed Mr. Walker President pro tem in his place, expecting to be able ere long to resume the chair. His expectation was not realized, however. The potent poison of his disease at last o'ercrowded his spirit and he passed away August 17, 1873. His indomitable will, in fact, had sustained him for years past against the pressure of illness and infirmity, that would have held almost any one else a prisoner in his room. I have heard of his being met by acquaintances on his way from his Fourth street house to the Convention, so exhausted he could hardly put one foot before another, leaning against a lamp-post to recover strength and save himself from falling, but he went on to the Convention hall, and did not relinquish the gavel until it fell from his hand. The records of the last as of the earlier Convention are full of the service which, with his last failing powers, he did the state. Pennsylvania has had to mourn no greater son nor is there any whose memory and example should be more precious to her people.

SOME RECOLLECTIONS OF THE BAR OF

FIFTY YEARS AGO

by

JOHN C. BULLITT

When I was admitted to the bar in June, 1849, I saw an array of solid, substantial and able lawyers, who had already control of the valuable and important business of the city. They commanded the confidence of the community and were fully equal to all professional requirements. It was a subject of deep interest to note the characteristics of the men who were then in the foremost ranks. It was somewhat disturbing to contemplate the attempt to achieve position among those who had already attained to such eminence. With no claim for recognition and without the benefit of special relations or influences upon which reliance could be placed, it was not a promising outlook for a stranger. In time, however, intercourse proved to be easy and pleasant, not only with the younger men, but also with many of those whose age and assured position gave more than ordinary interest to such intercourse, as opportunity offered for its cultivation.

Among those with whom I was thrown into contact at this period there is no one whom I remember with more grateful pleasure than Mr. Joseph G. Clarkson. He was a fine-looking man; full and round in form; kind and generous in natural warmth and ready to extend a genial welcome to one whom he knew to be a stranger. One of the earlier cases with which I became familiar, by reason of its importance and the questions which it involved, was that of Derby vs. The Philadelphia & Reading Railroad. It was tried in the United States Circuit Court in April, 1851. The suit was brought to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff in a collision on the defendant's railroad, caused by negligence of its employees. The chief defence relied upon

was, that the plaintiff was a stockholder and a guest of the company, and that he had not paid any fare. The Court held that these facts did not constitute a good defence, and that the right to recover did not depend upon any contractual relations, but upon the broad rule of negligence of the servant for which the master was responsible. Mr. Clarkson's argument, as senior counsel, was a masterly discussion of the law as well as the facts. He did not live to take part in the hearing before the United States Supreme Court in 1852. But the judgment in the Circuit Court was affirmed in an opinion by Mr. Justice Grier (Howard's Reports, vol. 14, p. 468), which has since been an authority in this class of cases.

Mr. Clarkson's life was too short to enable him to attain the full measure of success and reputation to which his ability and noble qualities entitled him to aspire. But he did achieve high rank, and his comparatively brief career gave promise of a brilliant future. He was, as far as I was able to form an opinion, one of the best types of the lawyers of his day.

At the time referred to, the lawyers' offices were largely on Fourth Street from Chestnut to Spruce; on Walnut from Fourth to Eighth Streets; and on Sixth Street from Chestnut to Locust. As a rule they had their offices and dwellings in the same building-the two lower rooms in the front being used as offices, and the remainder of the house for the dwelling. They were in such close proximity to the courts, and to each other, as to render intercourse easy and frequent. They were a genial, pleasant-tempered, and liberalminded set of men. In those days typewriters and telephones were unknown. Stenographers were not used, and the telegraph was sparingly employed. Most offices had one or more students who performed clerical duties. But the real work devolved upon the head of the office. There were no partnerships. A lawyer was obliged to prepare all his

own contracts, wills, and other documents of that character; draw his own declarations, pleas and bills and answers in equity proceedings; try his cases and practically to do the work of the office himself, the clerks only relieving him to some extent by copying and acting as messengers. Meetings with clients, conferences with other lawyers, and the examination and coaching of witnesses were, to a considerable extent, done in the evening. It was seldom that a lawyer could get through and throw off his business before 10 or 12 o'clock at night. They were hard working and frugal. Their charges were reasonable, and they did not often acquire what, even in those moderate days, could be called a fortune.

The District Court sat in banc on Saturday morning, in the second story back room at Sixth and Chestnut Streets. This was a sort of legal exchange. There the lawyers assembled. Some to argue cases, and some for the purpose of talking and laughing and having a good time. One was sure to meet pretty much everybody who was worth seeing. Agreements for trials, settlements of litigated cases and arrangements of every imaginable kind of controversies, were discussed and considered. Often large transactions were originated and others consummated. Here wits and humorists, such as George Northrop, Edward Hopper and John T. Montgomery, found a fitting place to get off their last good things. Oftentimes the noisy din of half suppressed voices and stifled laughter was such as to reduce the Court to a sort of side show, and when the presiding judge would come down with his gavel and call for order and silence, it was felt that he was rudely interrupting the business of the day. There was a wide and diversified range in subject and line of thought. History, biography, politics, finances, anecdotes and incidents of the past and present, contributed each their share to the conversation that flowed in an easy and spontaneous stream. It was in itself liberal education; knowledge was expanded; thought was strengthened and developed; the wits were quickened and

the whole mental and moral nature was enlivened and invigorated by the process. It conduced to unity of feeling and to the cultivation of frank and unrestrained intercourse and friendship. The harmony and good fellowship which prevailed were not even seriously disturbed by the asperities incident to the Civil War. They continued down to the time of the adoption of the Constitution in 1874, when the District Court was abolished. While the changes which were then made may have been expedient, it was a source of deep regret with myself as well as many others that it also had the effect of abolishing these meetings. These Saturdays in the Old District Court are among the most pleasant reminiscences of that long ago past.

Mr. Binney in 1859 made a most interesting and valuable contribution to the literature of the bar, in his work entitled "The Leaders of the Old Bar of Philadelphia." Its purpose was to rescue from oblivion the memories of some of the distinguished lawyers of the period beginning with the close of the Revolution and coming down through the first quarter of the nineteenth century. The cities of the country were then few, and the population limited. To this he attributes the fact that the reputations of leading lawyers were then more national than was possible at the time when he prepared his work. Then cities had multiplied. The increase of population had been by leaps and bounds. Philadelphia had become metropolitan in numbers and wealth. There was ample scope within our own city and State for the highest ambitions and most strenuous efforts of those who were seeking to attain to professional rank and eminence. They need not and did not look to other cities or States as their fields of enterprise. Nor does it appear to me as being in anywise disparaging to the dignity of the bar to recognize the fact that its sphere of active influence and operation was limited to the city of Philadelphia and