One of the great secrets of Mr. Harrison's success as a lawyer was his thorough prepa ration. While a "ready man," yet he never trusted to his "readiness," except ' when compelled to by lack of opportunity to ex amine and prepare for the case. His habit was to really cross-examine his own client in his own office before the trial, to search his knowledge of the transaction to be tried "fore and aft," and then "across decks. Rigid analysis was one of his greatest holds on a case; and when he had ascertained all the facts as near as he could, he usually was able to determine the turning point in the cause and to call for an "authority upon it to fortify himself. His statements of the case to the jury and the Court were terse and con cise, putting before them clearly his theory in the case. His briefs in the Appellate Court were models of terseness and perspicu ity. On paper he was as happy in making his point as in oral argument. In his demeanor toward the Court and either associate or opposing counsel, he was always courteous. He wasted no words in meaningless compliments: but he was never harsh, and he never "bullied." In the examination of witnesses General Harrison was remarkably happy in extract ing the facts. His forte was cross-examina tion. Few equalled him; none excelled him. Towards a witness he was always fair and courteous; he never brow-beat, and was al ways careful to state a witness's testimony as he gave it. Bit by bit he extracted the facts, until all were secured, often without the wit ness being fully conscious of the revelation he had made. No lying witness escaped him. If a witness was lying, it was often General Harrison's practice to get him to commit himself upon a point, and then draw his attention away from it until he had se cured his committal to a statement on the same point in direct contradiction of his first one; then calling his attention to his contra dictory statements, he would ask him which of the two contained the truth. He would
then quietly wait until the witness had given his answer, or declined to do it; but the effect was crushing; it demolished the wit ness's testimony. Of course such a course is dangerous if there is any chance for the wit ness to harmonize his two conflicting state ments; and it was here that Mr. Harrison's superior ability as a lawyer was manifested, in selecting statements of the witness that could not be made to harmonize with each other or with the uncontradicted facts. In examining a witness General Harrison had that rare faculty to know when to quit. He seldom caught a tartar. In one case an elderly and irascible lady witness came to the stand. She was a very "willing" witness, and testified volubly and extravagantly. When passed over to General Harrison for cross-examination, there was a look of tri umph in her eyes. She squared herself for a bout, when he said, "You may stand aside, madam." "Oh, I have heard of you; you can crossquestion me as much as you please; I am not afraid of you," she said. "I have no questions to ask you, madam," was his bland reply: and she was finished. "General Harrison," once said an exAttorney-General of Indiana to the writer, "was the only man I ever was associated with in the trial of a case whom I felt would not permit anything to escape or get away from us. When associated with him I al ways felt that everything would be said and done that could be said or done to win a cas£. He forgot nothing." And this is the testimony of all who have been associated with him. This was true of his arguments both to the Court and the jury. He was like a great fire sweeping over the prairie,—he carried every thing before him, he swept the field clear. "It was the rule in our firm," said one of his partners in 1888. "when we were for the de fense, to make General Harrison close for our side. If he made the first speech, we were like Riley's old father in the poem,
