for his familiarity with the Latin authors, he acquired the French and Spanish languages so that he not only spoke them with ease, but what is very rare, wrote them with great facility and correctness. His education as a lawyer was acquired in the offices of William Wirt and Richard S. Coxe, and he came to the bar at a very early age. It is rare to find so many of the good qualities of a lawyer combined as presented themselves in Mr. Carlisle's character. Everything he touched he adorned. Bright, witty, magnetic, he won the hearts of all with whom he came in contact. Before the court, dealing with nice questions and construing the authorities that sustained and strengthened his arguments, and before the jury, demonstrating the strength of the facts that he arrayed before them, he was alike excellent. For many years his practice was almost confined to the Supreme Court, and it is not saying too much to say that no lawyer ever more completely won and held the esteem, confidence, and respect of that great court than did Mr. Carlisle. Through nearly the whole of his professional career he was the retained counsel of several of the embassies to this country from foreign courts, and was thoroughly competent for the service required of him in that department of his practice. As a man he had those manners and qualities that always win friendship and admiration. To young men he was particularly gracious and kind, and many a tyro has gained courage and consolation by a kind word from him at a moment when it seemed as if he must resign all expectation of professional success. Of course such a man must be popular, and he was, until the latest hour of his life, beloved by his fellow-citizens of all classes.' Mr. Carlisle was particularly clever in clothing in prose or verse some witty thought that occurred to him in the course of an argument or trial at the bar, and not unfrequently he created great amusement by giving to what was else very grave and uninteresting an amusing aspect. As an example of this happy talent, the following may be given by way of illustration. One day, in the Supreme Court of the United States, a case involving in some way the Cliquot champagne was under argument. Mr. Eaton being of counsel, and it is presumed rather uninteresting in his presentation of his case, Mr. Carlisle wrote upon a slip of paper the following amusing epigram: "The widow Cliquot, oh ho! oh ho! The widow Cliquot, oh! ho! We're all of us thinkin' Right good is your drinkin,' But really your Eatin' so! so! so! so! But really your Eatin' so! so!" A The slip of paper upon which this was written was afterwards found among some papers sent to the clerk of the court by Chief Justice Taney, who had evidently taken it home with him to enjoy it at his leisure. Henry May, son of Dr. Frederick May, was born in Washington, and received a classical education. He studied law in the office of General Walter Jones, was admitted to the bar, and attained a high rank in the profession. Among the important cases in which he appeared was the trial of George Gardiner for forging a Mexican mine claim. In this case he was employed for the Government by Daniel Webster, then Secretary of State. He removed to Baltimore in 1850, was elected to Congress as a Democrat in 1854, and was reëlected in 1860. Although he was a Union man, he advocated compromise measures on the prospect of civil war, and in 1861, with the sanction of President Lincoln, left his seat in Congress and visited Richmond, to confer with the Confederate authorities on peace measures. During his absence an effort was made to expel him from the House on the charge of disloyalty, and on his return he was for several weeks imprisoned in Fort Lafayette. He was subsequently released on parole, and completed his term in the House of Representatives. He died September 25, 1866, in the city of Baltimore, which he had adopted as his home, leaving, many friends in the city of Washington who remember his many excellent qualities as a man and his brillianey as a lawyer and advocate. What has been said of the members of the bar of the District of Columbia in the foregoing pages has been said only of men of the past. It must not be supposed, however, from this that the worth and excellence of the bar of the District are things of the past. On the contrary, it may be safely said that the bar of to-day loses nothing by comparison with its former history. The men of to-day have no occasion to hang their heads; they are worthy successors of those who have preceded them. The location of the Supreme Court of the United States at the Capital of the Nation, naturally brings the members of the District bar into close relations with that Court, and from time to time many of them appear before that august tribunal. It is generally conceded that the District lawyers lose nothing by comparison with their brethren from the various State bars. This was most notably true of the lawyers of the past, and is none the less truc of the men of today. All this is emphasized by the fact that there exists between the justices of this great court and the members of the local bench and bar the kindest and most intimate friendly relations. Indeed, so great is the extent of this kindly feeling that the justices of the Supreme Court do not hesitate to unite with the members of the District bench and bar in their social gatherings, and to take a prominent part therein. 1 |