USA > New York > Courts and lawyers of New York; a history, 1609-1925, Volume II > Part 42
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46
whom the whitest snow was not more pure," he, of course, delights in featuring. Three great lawyers ascended the bench of the Superior Court in 1828: Samuel Jones, "the very
The growth of the Association has been truly wonderful. I have alluded to the fact that in June, 1870, the first meeting of the association was held in its home, 20 West Twenty-seventh Street. This was an ordinary house, 25 feet wide, whose second story was sufficient to house its library. But it was only two years later that the growth of the association demon- strated that it had outgrown its first home. In April, 1875, it acquired more spacious accommodations in a fine old mansion at No. 7 West Twenty- ninth Street, which stood upon a plot of ground nearly 75 feet wide. In October, 1875, the first meeting of the association was held there, but its steady growth required, a few years later, the erection of a hall for meet- . ings, with increased library accommodations, and the vacant portion of its premises was utilized for this purpose. But it was not long before its con- stantly increasing membership, and additions to its valuable and important library, made it evident that even its new surroundings would be insufficient for its accommodation. Consequently a new site was sought, and at last found, at 42 West Forty-fourth Street, on premises which extended through the entire block to Forty-third Street. It is necessary to do no more than to point to this magnificent building, with its library of over one hundred thousand volumes, and its membership of over two thousand. Here is to be found a veritable workshop of the law. See Strong's "Landmarks of a Lawyer's Lifetime" (1914), pp. 175-176.
24. Mr. Root was eighty years old on February 15, (1925). It has fallen to his lot to hold many public positions, but this is also true of numer-
PETER AUGUSTUS JAY
923
FIRST DISTRICT-N. Y. CITY AND COUNTY
able and deeply learned ex-chancellor"; Josiah Ogden Hoff- man, "than whom in his time, there was no higher authority on commercial law; and Thomas J. Oakley, "a great nisi prius lawyer and judge, independent of the books." His charge to the jury "was always the sun dispelling all clouds." John Wells and Thomas Addis Emmett were learned lawyers and brilliant lawyers; he called to mind, "the grand and genial David B. Ogden," of whom Chief Justice Marshall said that "when he had stated his case it was already well argued"; Peter A. Jay, "the scholarly, refined and profound" lawyer ; "the very lofty learned and accomplished John Duer, to whom, with his pure, wise and learned associate, Benjamin F. Butler, and the clear and strong John C. Spencer, we owe the revised statutes," the "right-minded and clear-headed Daniel Lord, for many years the leading commercial lawyer of the city"; the "fascinating Ogden Hoffman, the Erskine of our bar . . .; his voice was music from the note of a lute to the blast of a bugle"; William Kent, "who read everything and forgot nothing," a man of polished wit, sound law and beauti- ful diction; Marshall S. Bidwell, Prescott Hall, William C.
ous contemporaries of various nationalities. Mr. Root's distinction lies in the almost unrivalled ability he has shown in the posts that he has occupied, and in the long list of important achievements with which his career has been identified. He was born at Clinton, New York, February 15, 1845, when his father was a professor in Hamilton College. Graduating at that institution, at the age of nineteen, Mr. Root taught school for a short time, and then studied law at New York University. He has been a member of the New York Bar for the past fifty-eight years, and had been prominent in the affairs of the city and State when President Mckinley made him Sec- retary of War in 1899. In that post he reorganized the army, and provided for the administration of Porto Rico and the Philippines. After five years he retired from the Cabinet, but at the call of President Roosevelt, became Secretary of State in 1905. Four years later, he was elected United States Senator. His international services in connection with arbitrations, and in the diplomatic adjustment of relations between the United States and Great Britain, South America and the Far East had fitted him for more recent activities during and since the Great War. His part in affairs other than political and governmental has been constant, widely varied, and always public-spirited and conspicuously useful. He has borne his years lightly, is active in many directions, and is in constant demand on public occasion .- "The American Review of Reviews," March, 1925.
924
COURTS AND LAWYERS
Noyes, Edward Sanford, Nicholas Hill and Francis Cutting, each "a gentleman respected and loved by his peers, each mas- ter of the law"; George Wood, "conspicuous for his wonder- ful learning," lucidity of expression and strength of argument ; James T. Brady, of "genial nature, wide learning and masterly eloquence"; James W. Gerard, who was "irresistible socially and at nisi prius. .. bewitched juries"; John Anthon, who "for years monopolized the Superior Court"; William Mit- chell, "learned judge"; Edgar S. Van Winkle, "wise guide and counsellor"; Smith Thompson, of the United States Supreme Court, "the very incarnation of judicial dignity and power"; Samuel Nelson, his successor, "the most imperial man in his personal appearance and bearing on the bench" Mr. Silliman had ever seen, and "unsurpassed in clear, strong sound sense and good law"; Samuel R. Betts, "the great admiralty judge"; and other excellent lawyers and judges of the sixty-years period.25
Judge Theron B. Strong, who for forty years was con- nected with the bar of New York City, published an interest- ing work in 1914, "Landmarks of a Lawyer's Lifetime." In one chapter he refers to notable appellate justices of the three New York City courts of that class, the Supreme, Superior and Common Pleas courts, whose jurisdiction, in New York City, until 1896 was to all intents coordinate. He writes of the try- ing situation in which Judge Ingraham was placed when his
25. Samuel A. Talcott, Charles O'Conor, George Griffin, Henry R. Storrs, Peter W. Radcliff, Henry E. Davies, John A. Lott, John W. Brown, Grenville T. Jenks, James Emott, Joseph S. Bosworth, John van Buren, Lewis B. Wooodruff, the Emmetts, the Sandfords, Joshua Spencer, George and Edward Curtis, E. H. Owen, Samuel B. Ruggles, Josiah Sutherland, Benjamin W. Bonney, George R. J. Bowdoin, Quincy Morton, Hugh Max- well, Thomas L. Wells, G. G. van Wogenen, the Blunts, Humphrey H. Anderson, Benjamin K. True, David Graham, Hiram Ketchum, David S. Jones, Greene C. Bronson, John W. Edwards, Elisha W. King, John L. Mason, Ambrose L. Jordan, John Cleaveland, Anthony L. Robertson, Charles P. Kirkland, Alex. W. Bradford, Erastus C. Benedict, Charles W. Sanford, William A. Beach, Elijah Paine, George Wilson .- "History of Bench and Bar of New York" (1897), p. 243.
925
FIRST DISTRICT-N. Y. CITY AND COUNTY
associates on the General Term, Justices Barnard and Car- dozo, were "under grave suspicion as adherents of the Tweed régime." But "no one ever had the least suspicion of Judge Ingraham's absolute integrity." He was "a high-minded, up- right and efficient judge." It must have been a great relief to him when the places of these two associates were taken by Justices John R. Brady and Noah Davis. Judge Brady was "full of rollicking good humor," and brought about a refresh- ing change in the shrouded court. Judge Davis came to New York with a "high reputation acquired in a country practice" and became "the strongest and most eminent of our judges during his entire term of service." He eventually succeeded Ingraham as presiding justice, and had as one of his associates Charles Daniels, once a cobbler but eventually "one of the most painstaking, conscientious and intelligent jurists of the State." Charles H. Van Brunt was for thirty-six years con- tinuously on the bench, first on that of the Court of Common Pleas, and latterly that of the Supreme Court. As a trial judge he had few equals. Justice George C. Barrett, a "very attractive" judge was on the Supreme Court bench for thirty- five years (1871-1906) and earlier had been a District Court judge. In Judge Strongs estimation, Barrett proved to be "one of the best judges that have occupied seats on the Su- preme Court bench," a man of "dignity, courtesy and the capacity to subdue unruly and turbulent elements," yet "always a gentleman." Justice Edward Patterson was one "of the most popular judges"; always lovable; aroused no antagonism ; considerate, amiable, courteous. "It was like a ray of sunshine to have Edward Patterson cross one's path." Justice Josiah Sutherland, of the Supreme Court, was a man "of religious instinct and of a remarkably pure and blameless life." His portrait, which hangs over the entrance to the library of the Association of the Bar, was given "as a me- morial of a man who administered his high office with purity
926
COURTS AND LAWYERS
in corrupt times." Judge David McAdam, author of "McAdam on Landlord and Tenant," was a man of somewhat similar characteristics. "He sprang from the people, was a man of the people," an excellent, indefatigable lawyer, whose judicial career "was one of steady growth and advancement." After ten years as a judge of the Marine Court, he became chief judge of it, and later sat in the Superior and Supreme Courts. He was so democratic, so unostentatious that at first he refused to wear the robes of judicial dignity. Chief Judge George Shea, of the Marine Court, was "a typical Irishman," but was of pronounced judicial dignity. Chief Judge Charles P. Daly, whose career on the bench spanned most of the his- tory of the Court of Common Pleas of New York City, "was a talkative judge," although "a most learned, able, conscientious and upright man." Interesting and extensive sketches of Mr. Justice Field, William M. Evarts, Charles O'Conor, John K. Porter, Theodore W. Dwight, William F. Howe, George F. Comstock are given. He refers to the oratorical gifts of Pink- ney, Webster, Rufus Choate, Emmet, Henry, Wirt, O'Conor and Evarts, deploring that the young modern lawyer does not cultivate such oratory. He states that witnesses have been divided into three classes : "Liars, damned liars and experts," though he does not think that witnesses are often intentionally untruthful, but differ in ability to remember accurately. He refers to John Townsend "as one of the earliest annotators of our Code of Civil Procedure," which brings to mind the famous author of the code, David Dudley Field, whose place in New York legal history is high.
In a chapter on "Leaders of the Bar," Judge Strong men- tions Francis N. Bangs, who did not care "how hard an op- ponent fought, if he fought honestly ; he fought hard himself." He "tied more grass" across the path of opponents, to trip them (not dishonorably, of course,) than any other lawyer of his time in New York, testified one man. James C. Carter
VERNON M. DAVIS
FIRST DISTRICT-N. Y. CITY AND COUNTY 927
was not brilliant, but had, "by remarkable force of character, diligent study, unremitting industry and an assiduous culti- vation of his natural powers won his way to eminence in his profession." William Allen Butler, though there is nothing in the law itself to call out poetic feeling, yet is one of the in- stances of "eminent lawyers cultivating the acquaintance of the muses"; he had "a beautiful literary gift," and most of his lit- erary productions were the outcome of application of time that otherwise would have been wasted, while he attended in court, waiting for his cases to be heard; this was before the days of the telephone. William A. Beach had an impressive personality. He could be cold, impassive, sphinxlike ; indeed, his face would sedom "lighten up with animation." He was a fine orator, but generally, in his double-breasted tightly-but- toned frock coat, he was "solemnity and dignity personified." Aaron J. Vanderpoel was one of the busiest lawyers of his day; it is said that "for thirty years he was engaged in more cases before the courts than any member of the Bar." One of the strongest "and most rugged men of eminence at the bar" was Wheeler H. Peckham, son of Judge Rufus W. Peckham, Sr., and a brother of United States Supreme Court Justice Rufus W. Peckham, Jr.
But-a halt must be called to this running comment, for it has already covered more space than was originally allotted. All readers will appreciate that to attempt a complete review of one hundred and fifty years of incessant activity and note- worthy achievements of probably the most active public branch of a municipality larger than some nations would be impossible, unless a whole volume were given to it. How- ever, in the list of district attorneys,26 at foot, are the names
26. District Attorneys, County of New York:
In 1796 the State was divided into seven districts, and to each an Assistant Attorney-General was appointed. In New York County the Attorney-General officiated personally. But in 1801 the office of District Attorney was created. The metropolitan district was New York County, Kings, Queens, Richmond, Suffolk and Westchester. Of this district, the
928
COURTS AND LAWYERS
of some more of the most alert and capable members of the New York bar.
BRONX COUNTY.
Bronx is the youngest county division of the State of New York; and its establishment as such may be traced largely to the initiative of Bronx lawyers. The Association of the Bar of the County of Bronx was incorporated in 1902, as the As- sociation of the Bar of the Borough of Bronx in the City of New York, the name being changed in February, 1913. A committee of this association drafted the Bronx County Act in 1904, and was the sole advocate of the Act of 1912 through the courts.
On April 19, 1912, the act was passed creating the county of Bronx, subject to a referendum of the voters of the borough of Bronx. At the election of November, 1912, the majority of votes cast were in favor. However, the constitutionality of the act was questioned, on the ground that the Legislature had no power to submit the question to the voters, since New York State, being a representative democracy, should act through the representatives of the people in the Legislature ; and, secondly, that, if submitted to the people, it should have been put before the electorate of the whole of the city of New
successive District Attorneys were: Richard Riker, 1801-10; Cadwallader D. Colden, 1810-II; Richard Riker, 1811-14; Barent Gardenier, 1813; Thomas S. Lester, 1814-15; John Rodman, 1815-17.
In 1818 each county became a separate district for the purpose. The office was appointive until 1847. The District Attorneys of New York County since 1818 have been : Pierre C. Van Wyck, 1817; Hugh Maxwell, 1819; Ogden Hoffman, 1829; Thomas Phoenix, 1835; James R. Whiting, 1838; Matthew C. Patterson, 1844; John McKeon, 1846; John MeKeon, 1847; N. Bowditch Blunt, 1850; Lorenzo B. Shepard, 1854; A. Oakey Hall, 1854; Peter B. Sweeney, 1857; Joseph Blunt, 1858; Nelson J. Water- bury, 1858; A. Oakey Hall, 1859; Samuel B. Garvin, 1869; Benjamin K. Phelps, 1872; Daniel G. Rollins, 1881; John McKeon, 1881; Peter R. Olney, 1883; Randolph B. Martine, 1885; John R. Fellows, 1888; Delancey Nicolls, 1890; John R. Fellows, 1893; William K. Olcott, 1897; Asa Bird Gardiner, 1897; Eugene A. Philbin, 1900; William Travers Jerome, 1901; Charles S. Whitman, 1909; Edward Swann, 1915, 1917; Joab H. Banton, 1921.
929
FIRST DISTRICT-BRONX COUNTY
York, not only voters in the Bronx. The act was declared un- constitutional by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, but the decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals, on March 21, 1913.
The first county officers for Bronx, all elected in Novem- ber, 1912, were: L. G. Gibbs, county judge;27 G. M. Schultz, surrogate; Francis Martin, district attorney ; J. V. Ganley, county clerk ; J. F. O'Brien, sheriff.
The history of the Bronx is part of that of New York City, and it would be difficult to separate it. There have been some outstanding figures in Bronx history, however; for instance, Justices Julius Heidermann and John J. Brady had resided in the Bronx for more than fifty years at the time Bronx became a county.
If the Cole Judiciary Bill, revising Article VI of the ex- isting Constitution becomes law, through ratification by the people in November, 1925, Bronx County will elect an addi- tional county judge, and the City Court of New York will take over civil jurisdiction from Bronx County Court.
27. County Judges, Bronx County : Louis D. Gibbs, 1913; Albert Cohn, appointed, January, 1925.
Surrogates, Bronx County : George M. S. Schulz, 1913.
District Attorneys, Bronx County : Francis Martin, 1913; Edward J. Glennon, appointed, December, 1920; John E. McGeehan, appointed, Janu- ary, 1924.
C.&L .- 59
CHAPTER XLII. SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
The Second Judicial District comprises the counties of Kings, Queens, Nassau, Richmond and Suffolk. Until 1906 it also included five other counties-Dutchess, Orange, Put- nam, Rockland and Westchester-then set apart to constitute the Ninth Judicial District.
The most important county division of the Second Judicial District is Kings, but equally old are Dutchess, Queens, Rich- mond, Suffolk and Westchester, for all were created by the Dongan Legislature of 1683. The judicial history of this region, however, is older. Long Island, and parts of the mainland contiguous to New York City, became Yorkshire under the first English Governor, Nicolls, in 1665, the shire having three ridings, for judicial and political purposes. Courts of Sessions were held in each riding, three times a year, the judge travelling over this circuit accompanied by the high sheriff of Yorkshire. The inferior court was known as the town, or Constable's, Court. But the magisterial record goes even farther back, Dutch courts being organized on Long Island possibly before 1646. In Chapter XVI are stated the names of magistrates (of Courts of Schepens) as far back as 1646 in Breuckelen, 1647 in Heemstede, 1648 in Flushing, 1650 in Gravesend, 1652 in Middleburgh (New- town) and Oyster Bay, 1654 in Midwout (Flatbush) and Amersfoort (Flatlands), 1659 in New Utrecht and Rustdorp (Jamaica). The Dutch court records are fragmentary in this region, but the records of the English period are consecu- tive in most of the important villages.
Although the Second Judicial District was not organized until 1847, the functioning of the Supreme Court within it was to all intents similar to that which had been its customary
932
COURTS AND LAWYERS
procedure since the early decades of the provincial period. In 1847 the Supreme Court resumed circuit duties which had been vested for awhile since 1823 in the Circuit Courts ; and in the judicial departments and districts provided by the Consti- tution of 1846 the Supreme Court functioned as fully as in any other period of its history. The roster of the Supreme Court of provincial times is given in Part II; and in other chapters of Part III will be found the names of the Supreme Court justices for the period of the first State Constitution (1777- 1847), also of the circuit judges for the period of the second Constitution (1823-47). The General Term system of the period 1847 to 1895, and the succeeding Appellate Division system, 1896-1925, are traced in Chapter XXXVIII; there- fore, of Supreme Court record, so far as it concerns the Second Judicial District, only the full roster of justices from 1847 need be included in this chapter. The list is at foot.1
Most of the jurists named had worthy careers ; some came into particular and nation-wide notice; and on the succeeding
I. Supreme Court Justices, Second District-Selah B. Strong, 1847; William T. McCoun, 1847; Nathan B. Morse, 1847; Seward Barculo, 1847; John W. Brown, 1849; Selah B. Strong, 1851; William Rockwell, 1854; Gilbert Dean, 1854; James Emott, 1855; Lucien Birdseye, 1856; John W. Brown, 1857; John A. Lott, 1857; William W. Scrugham, 1859; John A. Lott, 1861; Joseph F. Barnard, 1863; Jasper W. Gilbert, 1865; William Fullerton, 1867; Stephen W. Fullerton, 1867; Abraham B. Tappen, 1867; Calvin E. Pratt, 1869; Joseph F. Barnard, 1871; Jasper W. Gilbert, 1873; Jackson O. Dikeman, 1875; Calvin E. Pratt, 1877; Erastus Cooke, 1880; Edgar M. Cullen, 1880; Charles F. Brown, 1882; Willard Bartlett, 1883; Joseph F. Barnard, 1885; Jackson O. Dikeman, 1889; Calvin E. Pratt, 1891; William J. Gaynor, 1893; Edgar M. Cullen, 1894; Martin J. Keogh, 1895; Wilmot M. Smith, 1895; William D. Dickey, 1895; Augustus Van Wyck, 1896; Nathaniel H. Clement, 1896; William J. Osborne, 1896; William W. Goodrich, 1896; Garret J. Garretson, 1896; Michael H. Hirshberg, 1896; Samuel T. Maddox, 1896; Jesse Johnson, 1897; Willard Bartlett, 1897; Frederick A. Ward, 1898; Almet F. Jenks, 1898; Josiah T. Marean, 1898; William J. Kelly, 1903; Joseph A. Burr, 1904; Walter H. Jaycox, 1906; Edward B. Thomas, 1906; Joseph Aspinall, 1906; Frederick E. Crane, 1906; Lester W. Clark, 1906; George B. Abbott, 1906; William J. Carr, 1906; Townsend Scudder, 1906; William J. Gaynor, 1907; Abel E. Black- mar, 1908; Luke D. Stapleton, 1908; Harrington Putnam, 1909; Isaac M. Kapper, 1909; Garret J. Garretson, 1910; Charles H. Kelby, 1911; Russell
BROOKLYN BOROUGH HALL
1
933
SECOND DISTRICT-KINGS COUNTY
pages of this chapter, in appropriate place and to the extent that available space will permit, the lives of these eminent jurists will be reviewed, as the county narratives unfold.
KINGS COUNTY.
The Dutch period in what became Kings County has been amply reviewed in Part I; the English period gives much Long Island history ; hence only the connecting steps will be touched in passing on to State history of jurisprudence in this part of New York.
From about 1640 English settlement on Long Island gath- ered force, and some reached such dimensions as to perplex the Dutch Governors. Gravesend was one of the most troublesome villages, the English being predominant there in the latter years of New Netherland. In 1653 a convention of delegates of the four English towns of Long Island- Hemp- stead, Gravesend, Flushing and Middlesburgh-seriously dis- turbed the peace of mind of Governor Stuyvesant; their ac- tions and words "smelt of rebellion," stated the Governor. Therefore, when another convention was decided upon in the same year, and Stuyvesant was advised that it would be held whether the Governor sanctioned the meeting or forbade it, Stuyvesant tried to safeguard the interests of New Nether- land by arranging that delegates of the Dutch towns-New Amsterdam, Breuckelen, Amersfoort and Midwout-also woud be present. Matters of personal safety against Indian attack were to be discussed, and also the right of communi- ties to have burgher government. The convention was held,
Benedict, 1911; James C. Van Sicklen, 1911; Almet F. Jenks, 1912; David F. Manning, 1912; James C. Cropsey, 1915; Stephen Callaghan, 1915; James C. Cropsey, 1916; William J. Kelly, 1917; Leander B. Faber, 1917; Edward Lazansky, 1917; Lewis L. Fawcett, 1917; Edward Lazansky, 1918; Leander B. Faber, 1918; Herbert T. Ketcham, appointed, April, 1919, to succeed Robert H. Roy; Arnon L. Squiers, 1919; Frank S. Gannon, 1920; Joseph Aspinal1, 1920; Norman S. Dike, 1920; Walter H. Jaycox, 1920; Selah B. Strong, 1920; John MacCrate, 1920; Mitchell May, 1921; Harry E. Lewis, 1921; William F. Hagarty, 1922; William B. Carswell, 1922; Isaac M. Kapper, 1923; Edward Riegelmann, 1924.
934
COURTS AND LAWYERS
but was short-lived, the Governor in anger dissolving the con- vention as soon as it began to encroach upon his authority. He declared that magistrates only, and not all people, had right to meet to discuss matters of government.
But magistrates were not all above suspicion at that time ; the appointing power lay largely with the Governor, and burgher government where in operation was by no means popular government. However, agitation generally brings about reform, though not always at once. In 1654, states the record, Breuckelen Court of Schepens was "enlarged" from a bench of two schepens to one of four; Flatbush was given a right to a court of three schepens ; Amersfoort was granted a like dignity in the same year. In 1661, Boswyck (Bushwick) and New Utrecht were added to the Dutch towns on Long Island that were given local government in this way. These, with Breuckelen, Amersfoort (Flatlands) and Midwout (Flat- bush), were grouped to form one magisterial district, gen- erally known as the "Five Dutch Towns" District. Each village had its Court of Schepens, but shared a schout, this important functionary of the Dutch legal system, living in Breuckelen, who attended court sessions in each of the towns. When not acting as prosecuting attorney, the schout, as the highest local representative of the law, would sit as presid- ing magistrate in the Schepens Court. There was another group of towns on Long Island described as the Five English Towns, and embraced Hempstead, Gravesend, Flushing, Middlesburgh and Jamaica: Schepens Courts ruled therein, and had, indeed, for some years, Jamaica (then known as Rustdorp) having organized its first Court of Schepens in 1656, and Newtown (or Middleburgh) in 1659. Jamaica, though grouped with the English towns, was largely Dutch. In 1664, delegates from the Dutch villages of Long Island, and of the Dutch part of the English communities, gathered at Jamaica to consider what should be done to meet the
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.