John K. Porter. just on the point of going home at nine or ten o'clock in the evening, was pretty sure to result in an all-night's session, and some times in a very excited discussion. For Mr. Hill, having elicited his junior's first impression, opinion, or criticism, would in variably assail it; and usually succeeded, at the outset at least, in demonstrating that there was " nothing in it,"- that it was " ridic ulous, untenable," etc. All the advocate in Porter being aroused, he would proceed to fortify his argument by a thorough examina tion of the question by aid of the facili ties at hand. The firm were then owners of the law library formerly belonging to Judge Cowen, who by its aid had, with Mr. Hill, created that monument of learning, "Cowen & Hill's Notes to Phillipp's Evidence,"— a library which was said to have cost him more than $25,000 (a great sum at that time), and which the firm had more than doubled. Daylight often saw the brief sent in by local counsel riddled and destroyed by the fire of enlightened and astute criticism, and an entirely new line of argument substi tuted. It did not always happen that one night sufficed, and it came to be the custom of Mr. Hill to fight inch by inch with his partner Porter, in these night sessions, over every case of interest which he was after ward to argue in the Court of Appeals. With such practice in fence against such an adversary, it was not surprising that when he met in court the brilliant men of the day, — O'Connor, Evarts, Noyes, Cornstock, Cutting, Ganson, Lord, et id ontne genus, the perfection of his armor and weap ons came to be proverbial. The result of such professional work had its reward. The firm of Hill, Cagger, & Porter stood easily first in the State, if certain firms in the city of New York be excepted, and perhaps first in any case. Certainly the arguments of Nicholas Hill were unsurpassed, and will probably remain forever unsurpassed in this State, for learning, logic, power, and per suasiveness. And for this they were in part indebted to midnight sessions in the
357
midst of the great Cowen library, with that fiery antagonist, John K. Porter, on the other side. It is easy to believe that but sel dom anywhere — probably never in the more formal air of court-rooms — have greater in tellectual contentions been heard, than some to which those silent walls were the only listeners. In 1846 Judge Porter was a member of the convention called to revise the Consti tution of the State of New York; and al though he was an active member of the various committees, he made but one speech. It was in support of a report upon limiting the powers and duties of the executive. A few quotations will give us a view of what sort of a statesman and publicist he was when twenty-seven years old: — "The gentlemen from Ontario and from Albany deny our right to restrict any but delegated power. Why, sir, the power of the electoral body itself is a delegated power — not in form but in effect — by the necessity of the social compact. We were elected only by qualified voters. But we are the representatives of all. Those electors themselves were but the representatives of the people. Four hundred and fifty thousand electors may constitute a plurality. Shall those two hundred thousand, a minority even of the electoral body, without re striction or barrier, select whomsoever they please to rule over two and a half millions of freemen? Every man that voted for you and me represented in his turn five unqualified citizens. We have a female population of one million two hundred and ninety-three thousand, — three times the number of your whole electoral body. They have as deep an interest in this Government as you; nay, a deeper interest. If your laws prove dangerous to liberty, you can unmake the work of your own hands. You are clothed with the power of the ballot-box. You have the strong arm to resist unto blood. They are voiceless, powerless, de fenceless! Are we not their representatives here? There are more citizens under than over the age of twenty-one years. They have more interest than we in the Constitution we are to frame. They are to survive us and the electors who sent us here. If we sow the wind, they are to reap the whirl wind. Nay, more, we are constitutionally legislat
