The Great India-Rubber Case. than any of the counsel except Mr. Webster. His argument was mainly upon the power of a court of Equity to grant a perpetual in junction in a patent case without first hav ing the question of infringement determined by a jury. He insisted that it could not be done, and in support of his position cited elaborately from the English practice and decisions, and taking the ground that the United States courts in equity had no greater equity powers than the English courts had at the adoption of the Constitu tion, no additional powers in that respect having been conferred upon the courts by Congress. His argument was eloquent and exhaustive, instructive and interesting, and showed great research and learning. It was presented with all the ingenuity the distin guished lawyer and orator possessed, and in the choicest and most expressive language. It seemed too learned and refined to be fully appreciated by the unprofessional specta tors, and it also evidently failed to convince or seriously impress the court, as was shown by remarks made by Judge Grier and ques tions asked by him during the discussion. The remainder of Mr. Choate's argument was mostly of a pathetic character, endeav oring to make Day a martyr in attempting to show how he had suffered by Goodyear's treatment, and although expressed with all the eloquence and pathos the great orator was capable of, he did not seem to make much impression, and was so neatly turned by Mr. Webster, that whatever effect it had produced was dissipated, and general sym pathy was changed to Goodyear. Mr. Choate was followed by Mr. Cutting, who made the closing argument for the de fendant. He went more into the facts of the case and endeavored to sustain Day's claims on the merits. His argument showed careful preparation, familiarity with the facts and thorough knowledge of patent law. He carefully analyzed the evidence, skillfully ap plied the law, reasoned ingeniously, and on the whole his argument was doubtless as
549
able as could be made on that side, but did not make the impression on the memory that the others did. Mr. Cutting was not much known in Trenton, and not having been in public life like Webster and Choate, did not attract the attention they did, nor to the extent that Mr. Brady did, the latter having several times appeared in the courts of New Jersey, was better known at Trenton and throughout the State. After Mr. Cutting concluded, Mr. Web ster commenced the closing argument for Goodyear. It was known that he was to speak that day, and the great numbers pres ent not only from Trenton and other parts of New Jersey and elsewhere, especially from New York, showed that he was the great attraction at the trial. The large court-room was packed to its utmost capacity, and it is safe to say that never before or since contained within its walls so many distinguished legal lights as were in attendance, and it is doubtful whether any trial in this country ever drew together more lawyers than were then pres ent. It seemed that the whole bar of New Jer sey, including most of the judges of the higher courts, the state officers and mem bers of the Legislature then in session, came to hear the great expounder who confessed ly stood at the head of the American Bar. Mr. Webster's argument is in print, and it would be superfluous to review it here. Only a few points in it in connection with incidents that occurred during its delivery will be noticed. It is no disparagement of the other eminent counsel to say Mr. Web ster was greatest of all. Brady was clear, strong and exhaustive, Choate learned, bril liant, witty and pathetic, Cutting logical, thorough and evidently made the best that could be done with his side, but Webster seemed to combine the qualities of all the others. He had the subtlety of Bacon, without his craftiness, and the powers of Demos
