There is no doubt that Mr. Webster derived considerable advantage from his association with his elder professional brother. He had adopted a style very common with young men, abounding in large words, and made his sentences longer than were needful. He observed that Mr. Mason, on the other hand, talked to the jury in a plain, conversational way, and cultivated simplicity of diction. Yet he was noted for his success in winning cases. Daniel was sensible enough to correct his fault and prune his too luxuriant style, very much to its improvement.
No admirer of Daniel Webster should fail to read the volume of “Reminiscences” by his lifelong friend, Peter Harvey. His confidential relations with his distinguished friend make what he records not only entertaining but trustworthy and valuable. I shall venture to transfer to my pages from Mr. Harvey’s volume an account of two cases in which Mr. Webster was engaged during his residence in Portsmouth, with the suggestion that the entire volume will amply repay perusal.
“Among Mr. Webster’s reminiscences of his professional career at Portsmouth, and of Jeremiah Mason’s connection with it, was one relating to a case in which a man named Bramble was implicated. Matthew Bramble, it appears, was a wealthy resident of Portsmouth, and, as the sequel proved, an unscrupulous man. His social position was good, but a feeling of distrust towards him existed in the community. It seems that Bramble had given to a man named Brown an annuity bond, agreeing to pay him one hundred dollars a year as long as he lived. This was to keep dominant a title to some real estate. Bramble had more than once tried to persuade Brown to take a ‘lump’ sum of money and cancel the bonds, but this Brown persistently declined to do, and in this he was supported by the advice of his friends. After in vain offering one thousand dollars, Bramble resorted to the following method of getting rid of his obligation. He was accustomed, when he paid the hundred dollars, to indorse it on the bond. The next chance he got, he indorsed, not one hundred dollars, but one thousand dollars, adding ‘in full consideration of and canceling this bond.’ Brown, who could not read or write, unsuspectingly signed his mark to this indorsement. Bramble then coolly handed him back the bond, and of course said nothing of the matter.
“When the year came round, an altercation took place between them.
“Bramble said, ‘I owe you nothing; I paid you a thousand dollars, and it is certified on your bond.’
“Brown was a poor shoemaker, simple-minded, truthful, weak, not capable of coping with this wily scamp. He was friendless, while Bramble was a rich man. Poor Brown did not know what to do. He had convinced his neighbors that he was right. He went to Jeremiah Mason, who told him he was Mr. Bramble’s lawyer. Mr. Mason had asked Bramble about the matter, and the latter had showed the bond, and Mr. Mason probably believed him. A friend then advised Brown to go to Mr. Webster; and after hearing his story, Mr. Webster was quite convinced of the truth of Brown’s statement. He had no confidence in Bramble. In relating the story, he said to me: ‘I knew nothing positively against Bramble, but something impressed me that he was not a man of honor. I was at once satisfied that he had committed this fraud upon Brown, and I told the latter that I would sue Bramble for the annuity. He said he had nothing to give me in payment. I said I wanted nothing. I sent Bramble a letter, and he made his appearance in my office.
“’“I should like to know,” he said sharply, “if you are going to take up a case of that kind in Portsmouth? It seems to me you don’t know on which side your bread is buttered.”
“’“This man has come to me,” I replied, “without friends, and has told me a plain, straightforward story, and it sounds as if it were true. It is not a made-up story. I shall pursue this thing, and sue you, unless you settle it.”’
“Bramble went to Mr. Mason, who afterwards said to Mr. Webster: ‘I think you have made a mistake. Bramble is a man of influence. It can’t be that the fellow tells the truth. Bramble would not do such a thing as that.’
“Mr. Webster replied, ‘He has done just such a thing as that, and I shall try the suit.’
“So the preliminary steps were taken, and the suit was brought. The case came on at Exeter in the Supreme Court, Judge Smith on the bench. It created great excitement. Bramble’s friends were incensed at the charge of forgery, and Brown, too, in his humble way, had his friends. Mr. Webster said: ‘I never in my life was more badly prepared for a case. There was no evidence for Brown, and what to do I did not know. But I had begun the suit, and was going to run for luck, perfectly satisfied that I was right. There were Bramble and his friends, with Mason; and poor Brown had only his counsel. And Mason began to sneer a little, saying, “That is a foolish case.”
“’Well, a person named Lovejoy was then living in Portsmouth; and when there is a great deal of litigation, as there was in Portsmouth, and many towns in New Hampshire, there will always be one person o............