CHAPTER VIII.

The New Hampshire Bar-Mr. Webster and Jeremiah Mason Professional Anecdotes-The Drilled Witness-Webster's Farm -Mr. Webster's Marriage-State of the Country and of Parties - New England Interests - The Bar as an Introduction to Public Life - Mr. Webster in "caucus"- Popular Enthusiasm - Mr. Webster's Professional Industry- His Habits of Early Rising His Letter upon the Morning.

AMONG the distinguished men with whom Mr. Webster was brought into competition at the bar of the Superior Court of New Hampshire, were Jeremiah Mason, Edward St. Loe Livermore, William King Atkinson, and George Sullivan. Jeremiah Smith was Chief Justice of the State; and having been an early and attached friend of Mr. Webster's father, the son succeeded to his friendship. Samuel Dexter and Joseph Story, of Massachusetts, were occasional practitioners in the New Hampshire courts. To meet such men, Mr. Webster was obliged assiduously to prepare himself; and by close study to supply his lack of experience. He sounded his clients thoroughly,

and explored every point which the opposite party were likely to make; acquainting himself carefully with the weakness as well as the strength of his own side, and of the other. He was very rarely surprised by any new or unexpected testimony; and even though some unlooked-for development occurred, he betrayed no astonishment.

As Mr. Mason and Mr. Webster were the acknowledged heads of the bar, they were usually engaged in the same causes, and most generally opposed to each other. They travelled together, occupied apartments in the same house, and sat at the same table; by their friendly intercourse exciting the wonder of men, who could not comprehend how the two great advocates could deal such hard blows in argument, and still be warm friends. Mr. Mason died in 1849; and Mr. Webster, in a speech at the meeting of the Suffolk Bar, made the following allusion to their early and continued friendship: "The proprieties of this occasion compel me, with whatever reluctance, to refrain from the personal feelings which arise in my heart upon the death of one with whom I have cultivated a sincere, affectionate, and unbroken friendship, from the day that I commenced my own professional career to the closing hour of

his life. I will not say, of the advantages which I have derived from his intercourse and conversation, all that Mr. Fox said of Edmund Burke; but I am bound to say, of my own professional discipline and attainments, whatever they may be, I owe much to that close attention to the discharge of my duties, which I was compelled to pay for nine successive years, from day to day, by Mr. Mason's efforts and arguments at the same bar. Fas est ab hoste doceri; and I must have been unintelligent indeed, not to have learned something from the constant displays of that power which I had so much occasion to see and to feel." While conversing upon his connection with Mr. Mason, Mr. Webster once said: "If any body should think me somewhat familiar with the law on some points, and should be curious enough to desire to know how it happened, tell him that Jeremiah Mason compelled me to study it. He was my master."

It is related that the first meeting of Mr. Webster with Jeremiah Mason, as opposing counsel, was in a criminal case. The person accused being a man of some note, great efforts were made to defend him; and Jeremiah Mason, as the most prominent member of the Portsmouth Bar, was

engaged for the defence. In the absence of the prosecuting attorney, Mr. Webster was delegated to conduct the prosecution for the State. The accused was acquitted; but Mr. Mason acknowledged the high, open, and manly ground taken by Mr. Webster. He did not resort to technicalities, but confined himself to the law and the facts, and commanded the high respect of bench and of bar.

An amusing anecdote of Mr. Webster's early professional career, as related by himself, is given in Lanman's "Private Life." "Soon after commencing the practice of my profession at Portsmouth," said Mr. Webster, "I was waited on by an old acquaintance of my father's, resident in an adjacent county, who wished to engage my professional services. Some years previous, he had rented a farm, with the clear understanding that he could purchase it, after the expiration of his lease, for one thousand dollars. Finding the farm productive, he soon determined to own it; and as he laid aside money for the purchase, he was tempted to improve what he felt certain he should possess. But his landlord, perceiving the property was greatly increased in value, coolly refused to receive the one thousand dollars, when, in due

time, it was presented; and when his extortionate demand of double that sum was refused, he at once brought an action of ejectment. The man had but the one thousand dollars, and an unblemished reputation; yet I willingly undertook his

case.

"The opening argument of the plaintiff's attorney left me little ground for hope. He stated that he could prove that my client hired the farm; but there was not a word in the lease about the sale, nor was there a word spoken about the sale when the lease was signed, as he could prove by a witness. In short, his was a clear case, and I left the court-room at dinner-time with feeble hopes of success. By chance I sat at table next a newly-commissioned militia officer, and a brother lawyer began to joke him about his lack of military knowledge. 'Indeed,' he jocosely remarked, 'you should write down the orders, and get old W to beat them into your sconce, as I saw him this morning with a paper in his hand, teaching something to young M- in the courthouse entry.' Can it be, thought I, that old W—, the plaintiff in the case, was instructing young Mwho was his reliable witness? "After dinner the court was reopened, and

W