he was returned to his father, it was with the significant warning from Mr. Backus, that if care was not taken, that boy would break his traces. The traces, however, were probably stronger than the teacher thought, as he continued to be a laborious, self-denying student for very many years." He entered college at the too early age of thirteen, and graduated at seventeen. He often spoke of this with regret in his subsequent life. He, however, either then or at a later period, formed habits of study, and of patient application, which laid the foundation for eminence in his profession as a lawyer and a judge. He found difficulties, indeed, but he met them only to conquer them. He seems to have started in life with the double purpose of seeking no position, not within his reach, and of being deterred from reaching it by no obstacles which patient industry and unvarying perseverance could overcome. He pursued the study of law in the Law School at Litchfield, Ct., and subsequently with Chief Justice Swift, at Windham, Ct. Judge Reeve said to one of his friends, "Young Williams is the best scholar I have ever sent from Litchfield."

HIS FORENSIC LIFE.

He commenced the practice of law at Mansfield, Connecticut, in 1798, while yet only twenty-one years of age. His youth, together with his exceeding modesty, made his first efforts at the bar very

1 This school was established by Tapping Reeve, then at the bar, afterwards Chief Justice of the State. He was sole instructor until 1798, when he associated James Gould with him, afterwards Judge of the Supreme Court. Judge Reeve gave lectures until 1820, and died in 1823. After his connection with the school ceased, it was continued for some time by Judge Gould, but has been closed now for many years.

2 Zephaniah Swift was a graduate at Yale College in 1758, and began the practice of law at Windham, Ct. He was a member of Congress early in life; in 1800 accompanied Ellsworth, Davis and Murray in their mission to France as Secretary, was Judge of the Supreme Court in 1801, and Chief Justice in 1815, and retired in 1819, and died at Warren, Ohio, Sept. 27, 1823. He was the author of Swift's Digest, 2 vols., on the model of Blackstone.

3

trying. "I have heard my uncle say," writes his niece, "that no one was ever more overpowered by diffidence than he was in his first plea in a Windham County Court. In a letter from my father to him, written in reply to one asking advice respecting his removal from Mansfield to Hartford, he says, 'I fear for your modesty, it will have a fearful trial to encounter in the city.' He however removed to Hartford in 1803, and commenced his life work in a field adapted to develope his energies, and reward his toil. He gave himself wholly to his profession." "This one thing I do," he could say with peculiar truthfulness. Unquestionably this singleness of aim and application, was one of the secrets of his great success. One who knew him well, says: "Among his cotemporaries and competitors were men of much eminence for their attainments and talents in the legal profession, and it may well be doubted whether at any period of the history of this State, the bar could command a greater array of learning or ability than while Judge Williams was a member of it, and in practice. To stand side by side with the most prominent men of the profession at that time, was no small honor. By his unflinching integrity, his extensive legal attainments, and great ability, Judge Williams acquired the confidence of the court and jury in an uncommon degree, and was a most successful advocate." Another, long a resident of Hartford, and who began the practice of law at the Hartford County Bar, before Judge Williams was elevated to the bench, in a letter written for this very place, says:

"In compliance with your request, I now give you some professional reminiscences of my honored friend, Chief Justice Williams. I do this the more willingly, from the fact that I have long re

3 William Hungerford, Esq., admitted to the bar in 1812, and for twenty-five years or more a resident of Hartford, Ct. Memorial, p. 34.

4 Rev. Selah B. Treat, now Secretary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.

and instructive to all who are expecting to be public speakers, whether at the bar or in the pulpit.

of

"To those gifts of the orator which are most coveted and most admired, he would have made no claim. His mastery of words was imperfect; so was his power illustration. The graces of a finished elocution were denied him; and whatever might have been possible for him, he certainly sought but little aid from wit and humor. If a stranger had seen him trying an important case with Goddard, Dagget, and Sherman, he would have said, Williams has less genius than any of them.' And yet he was a man that clients were glad to employ, and juries were glad to hear. He was eminently successful. Why?

"1. He understood his profession thoroughly. He did not trust to his unquestioned ability, his wide acquaintance with men, his excellent character, but to his industry. He was always studious, reflective, patient. He read extensively, discriminated soundly, and remembered easily. His acquisitions, moreover, were peculiarly available. His 'law' was practical, rather than scholastic. He could have made distinctions with abundant subtlety; but he preferred to take common sense views of the questions which he examined.

"2. He prepared his cases thoroughly. He endeavored to ascertain beforehand the exact strength of his own position, as also that of his adversary. He left as little as possible to chance. According to his ability, he guarded against surprises. And in doing this, he sometimes exhibited remarkable sagacity. I was once assoIciated with him in a case which involved a large amount of property, and which we considered impregnable. The day before the trial he said to me, 'There must be some trap preparing for us. I wish you to see Mr. to-night, and ascertain, if possible, what it is.' I entered his office the next morning, after a

report. It is just as I feared,' he said. Few lawyers whom I have known, would have divined that most improbable line of defence.

"3. He was quick to appreciate the bearing of facts, as they were evolved in the course of a judicial investigation. He watched the phases of a sharply contested trial with the eye of a skillful general. Nothing, apparently, escaped his notice. If a witness faltered, on one side or the other, he was sure to perceive it. If a weak point was uncovered, he was not slow to see it; nor was he slow to act in such an emergency. He was greatly assisted in this part of his practice by his ready knowledge of men. He seemed to read them almost as easily as a book. Seldom have I known him excelled in this particular.

"4. He did not injure his case by unprofessional conduct. He may have handled a witness, occasionally, with some lack of gentleness; but he had his reasons, doubtless; and he always endeavored to keep within the limits prescribed by the usages of the bar. He may have set forth his opinions in language that was decidedly emphatic; sometimes, indeed, he commented upon matters which he considered questionable, with a good deal of severity. Still it was obvious that he only sought to be faithful to his client. He was earnest, but honest. And here I come to a chief element of his success. For,

"5. In speaking to a jury, he seemed in an unusual degree to make his client's case his own. He put himself into his plea. He was not uttering certain words, studied and plausible, because he had received a retainer; but he was expressing his individual convictions. He did not deal in sophistry, extravagance ́of statement, boldness of assertion. He appeared to say, 'I must make such a presentation of this matter, adapted to ordinary minds, as I can honestly make.' And having formed his plan, if the importance of the case justified it, he threw his whole soul

into his argument. Here, I apprehend, lay the secret of his strength. He was always ingenious, and he could be exhaustive. At times his words were admirably selected; at times his elocution was very impressive. But something else was more effective. He was thoroughly in earnest.

"6. The uprightness and dignity of his life increased his power as an advocate. When he rose to address a jury in the Hartford court-room, it was Thomas Scott Williams, known on every hand as a man without reproach. He could look into the eyes of the twelve triers that set before him, and plead for the sanctity of law, with no fear that they would contrast his words with his acts. No appeal for justice which fell from his lips, was ever marred by thoughts or suspicions of something ignoble lurking somewhere in his previous history. True, he had never professed to be a disciple of the Great Teacher. Still his outward life was singularly blameless. Hence his character stood behind his argument, as it were, an immovable buttress.1

"Some may wish to know how he regarded his profession, after he became a professed follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. I had a conversation with him on this very subject, not long before his death. He had no question as to the importance of the service which the bar performs in the administration of justice, to say nothing of the influence which it exerts upon legislative and other interests. The careful arguing of cases he considered of great value in securing wise

1 Judge Williams was never supercilious or overbearing; but he was perfectly fearless in upholding the rights of his clients. On one occasion he applied the word "trickery." to certain doings of the opposing counsel, in the presence of the court. After the adjournment, his antagonist (who had said nothing before) turned upon him with considerable assumption of dignity, and inquired, "Did I understand you, sir, to accuse me of trickery?" "I certainly used that word," replied Judge Williams, "and shall use it again, if I have the same occasion for it." The dialogue closed immediately, and there was no further need of the employment of such an expression.

decisions. At the same time, he understood very well the temptations and perils to which conscientious lawyers are exposed. He had formed, however, a more charitable judgment in respect to their alleged short-comings than many are accustomed to express. He believed that they did more to prevent litigation than is generally supposed. He also believed that they regarded their clients as having justice on their side more frequently than is commonly assumed. He mentioned the instance of a mutual acquaintance, who formerly occupied a prominent place at the Connecticut bar, and who said to him, 'I never undertook the management of a case, in the merits of which I had not confidence.' Still Judge Williams did not endeavor to defend his own course, in all respects. High Christian principle, he thought, would have modified his practice in some particulars."

HIS JUDICIAL LIFE.

He was appointed judge in 1829, and in 1834, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, which office he filled with universal acceptance, never soiling the ermine of the bench, or disappointing the high hopes of his many admiring friends. "He brought to the bench a very unusual combination of qualifications peculiarly fitting him for the station..... He well understood that the law as a practical science,' could not take notice of melting lines, nice discriminations and evanescent quantities..... Metaphysical refinements and hair-splitting distinctions had little influence with him..... In his decisions he was exceedingly impartial. He ever looked at the case, and not at the parties. It may, I think, with great truth be asserted, that he had 'no respect

2 He very modestly withholds his own course in this particular. One long conversant with his practice as a lawyer, says: "Very often in his early, as well as later public life, he induced his clients, and their opponents, to settle their differences between themselves, and thus avoid the trouble and expense of law-suits; and such an example is so rare in the legal profession that I think it well worthy of note."" 3 Mr. Hungerford, Memorial, p. 35.

of persons' in judgment. He heard the 'small as well as the great." Another,1 in an admirable position to know whereof he affirms, says: "Judge Williams was distinguished when on the bench, as a judge of great decision, of vigorous and comprehensive mind, and of great moral excellence. His perfect integrity, and his intrepid assertion of his views of right, commanded the highest confidence of the community, while the determinations of his intellect were regarded as almost infallible. His knowledge of law was not so much the fruit of constant or extensive reading, as of a thorough study of a few elementary books, and the mastery of elementary principles. He seemed to have an almost intuitive perception of the merits of a case, and of the principle which was to be its solvent. He united great modesty and quietness of manner with the utmost fairness. His mind was eminently safe in its operations, as he was never led astray by any false lights from the imagination. He looked wholly at the reality of a thing, and was never disturbed by the gloss which it wore. With all this matter of fact habit of mind, and this absence of imagination, he had yet a most genial disposition, and one of the kindest of hearts. His sympathies were warm and active and wide reaching."..

....

Chief Justice Storrs 2 died at Hartford, but six months previous to the death of Chief Justice Williams. This very Appendix of the XXIX. Vol. of Reports contains an obituary notice of each of

1 John Hooker, Esq., Reporter of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, in Appendix to Conn. Reports, Vol. XXIX., pp. 611-614.

"In bringing into so close proximity these brief notices of Chief Justice Williams and Chief Justice Storrs, both so eminent in the exalted positions which they occupied, it becomes very natural to compare them, and to throw into contrast their more striking individualities. While belonging in common to the list of great chief justices, they were yet very dissimilar. Indeed two men of superior intellects and of the same general tenor of life, could hardly be found more unlike in the leading characteristics of their minds. That of Judge Storrs was polished in the highest degree by classical study and a lifelong familiarity with the best English literature, and his utterances were always in the most elegant diction of the schools; the mind of Judge Williams had derived from his collegiate education little but discipline, and he generally spoke and wrote in a condensed and vigorous Saxon, with little regard to the balance of his sentences or the grace of his periods. Judge Storrs had a mind of extraordinary penetration, that could look down the deepest abysses of thought without agitation, and could explore the profoundest depths without losing its way; Judge Williams saw whatever he was looking after without seeming to search for it, the nearer and the remoter all coming before his mind alike, as obvious truths which it was a matter of course for every body to see. The mind of Judge Storrs was stimulated and excited by the adventurous character of any mental ex

every thing so plain before him that he was never excited by any consciousness of great intellectual effort. Judge Williams came to his conclusions by a single step, and with something like intuition, and looked about afterwards for his reasons, and this, less to satisfy his own mind than to convince his associates on the bench, or the public in his written opin

ions. Judge Storrs, in seeking his results, moved along down the line of a close logic, and reached his conclusions by a prior consideration of the reasons. I can hardly conceive any thing more exquisite than the movements of his mind, as it was feeling its way along through a maze of perplexities, in the consultations of the judges, which it was my privilege to attend as reporter of the court. Both were men of strong common sense. With Judge Williams this common sense dictated the result, and left his reason to defend it; with Judge Storrs logical reasoning worked out the result, and then an almost unerring common sense came in to test it, and to prevent the too common mistake of taking what seems a necessary logical conclusion as a safe and correct one, in so practical a matter as the administration of justice. The mind of Judge Williams was eminently practical; that of Judge Storrs more inclined to the speculative. The one would have made a successful worker in almost any department of labor that required a vigorous and self-reliant intellect; the other would have made a philosopher of the best age of philosophy. Judge Storrs had read law more extensively, and was more familiar with the whole range of law as a science; Judge Williams had dealt with it as a practical thing, rather inhaling it as an atmosphere in which he lived, than systematically pursuing it as a study. Judge Williams rarely hesitated in his conclusions, and if he did, seemed to desire only time for reflection, and to care little for consultation with others; Judge Storrs worked easily to his conclusions, but was always glad of an opportunity to compare his views with those of his brethren. Judge Storrs would sometimes let considerations of policy enter his mind; Judge Williams never. The mind of Judge Williams seemed to work by a law of its own, so that even without the control of his high moral qualities it could hardly have gone astray; that of Judge Storrs seemed to involve the whole aggregate of his faculties, so that with a bad heart he

would have made an unsafe judge. Where a case seemed to Judge Storrs imperatively to require a decision which some general principle seemed almost as imperatively to forbid, he would find his way to the predestinated result with surprisingly little injury to the general principle. I hardly know what Judge Williams would have done; but I think he would have drawn upon his courage more than upon his ingenuity. The manner of Judge Storrs on the bench was more courteous and affable; the quiet firmness of Judge Williams approached very nearly to sternness; yet the former would often, especially in his later years, manifest an impatience under a lengthy argument, that the latter would never have shown under an inexcusably tedious one. Judge Storrs was never very fond of work, and in his later years was a little too much inclined to avoid it; Judge Williams never knew what self-indulgence was, and worked through the allotted hours with no thought of his own ease. Judge Williams must have made an able judge at the outset; to Judge Storrs the training of judicial experience was more necessary. The judicial qualities of Judge Storrs would be called splendid, a term which seems hardly appropriate in such a connection, yet is perfectly applicable here; those of Judge Williams were great, in the true sense of the term, bnt with no quality of brilliancy. Both brought honor to the exalted office which they held, and have left to their associates and to the profession, not merely great examples for imitation, but a burden of increased responsibility in preserving the high character of the judicial office." Mr. Treat, in speaking of him as a Judge, says :

:

"As I never had occasion to appear before this excellent man, while he sat upon the bench, I am not able, from personal knowledge, to speak of him as a judge. But I cannot be mistaken, I am sure, as to the estimation in which he was held by his own profession and by the public.