JOHN NORTON POMEROY, CALIFORNIA. (1828-1885.) "The Macaulay of Equity." Born at Rochester, New York, April 12, 1828, died in San Francisco, California, February 15, 1885, aged fifty-six. Was the son of Enos Pomeroy, one of the pioneer lawyers of Western New York, and many years surrogate of Monroe county. Entered Hamilton College at fifteen, but left without graduation. Taught in Rochester, New York, Lebanon, Ohio, and Kingston, New York. Studied law with Thomas Corwin, of Lebanon, and Judge Henry R. Selden, of Rochester, being admitted at twenty-three. After thirteen years' practice he was called to the chair of Municipal Law in the University of New York, which he filled from 1864 to 1870. Became professor of law in the University of California in 1878, which position he held till death. Hamilton College made him LL.D. in 1865. He is the author of numerous law treatises, not confined to any particular branch of the law, the most notable being his first and last-"Municipal Law," and "Equity Jurisprudence;" the former containing, in the language of Chief Justice Horton, of Kansas, "the most complete and satisfactory sketch of the unwritten law extant," and the latter being characterized by Professor William G. Hammond as "The best American and English treatise on the subject, and very probably will always remain so. An abler discussion of equity as it now is, than Judge Story's was of equity when he wrote." He is chiefly known through his law lectures and books. He was a frequent contributor to the North American Review, the American Law Review, the Nation, and other periodicals, and one of the editors of Johnson's Encyclopedia, contributing a large number of legal articles in that work. He believed that "Jurisprudence is the best exponent and stimulus of civilization" Excelled in clear definition, orderly arrangement, exact classification and searching for the sources and logical results of principles which cannot change. He was of studious and recluse habits, a proficient in Roman and ancient law, and one of the most discriminating and philosophical law writers of our country. JOHN K. PORTER, NEW YORK. (1819-1892.) One of the three greatest tested the Beecher-Tilton case. advocates who con Born at Waterford, New York, January 12, 1819; died in New York, April 11, 1892, aged seventy-three. Graduated from Union College at eighteen; read law with Doe and Kimball, of Waterford; admitted at twenty-one, and settled at Saratoga. In 1848 he moved to Albany and formed a partnership with Nicholas Hill, Jr., and Peter Cagger--the former and Mr. Porter often arguing and briefing cases all night in their $50,000 library. At twenty-seven he was a member of the New York constitutional convention. In 1865 he was appointed Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, resigning which, 1867, he moved to New York city. He was counsel at thirty-four for John C. Mather for impeachment; appeared at thirty-eight for the disfranchised corporators of Trinity Church; made his great argument in the Parrish will case in the New York Court of Appeals at forty-three; appeared in Quadruplex Telegraph cases in New York Su preme Court; defended the Tribune, 1861, for libel (Littlejohn v. Greeley, 13 Abb. Pr. 311); represented plaintiff in Metropolitan Bank v. Van Dyck, 27 N. Y. 400, involving the legality of the Legal Tender Acts; successfully defended General Babcock at St. Louis, Missouri, 1875; appeared for Beecher in his great trial with Tilton; refused a $50,000 retainer from Tweed; prosecuted Guiteau for the Government; was attorney for the New York Elevated railroads. His judicial fame may well rest upon People v. Roper (35 N. Y. 631). He came nearer being a genius than any contemporary at the New York bar. His most potent characteristic was his dramatic power, being peerless before a jury. Said the Albany Law Journal, during the Beecher trial: "Mr. Beach fills us with admiration of the advocate, Mr. Porter makes us in love with his cause; Mr. Beach lifts us up, Mr. Porter carries us away; when we listen to the one we are afraid we shall yield without knowing it. Evarts, Porter, Beach, combined would make the ideal advocate. If we are ever indicted, we shall retain Evarts as general manager, Porter to sum up to the jury, and Beach to argue the appeal, if we happen to be convicted." Sovereignty of the National Government. "The Federal Government, in its national relations, is invested with the powers of sovereignty. If the Constitution had failed to invest it with these, it would, in the language of Chief Justice Marshall, have been only 'a splendid bauble.' Mere forms are nothing. Substance is everything. It was said by Napoleon, that 'a throne is a mere block of wood, covered with velvet. A national constitution, which failed to organize a nation, would be even more unmeaning than the throne stripped of its covering.” Extract from argument in Metropolitan Bank v. Van Dyck, N. Y. Court of Appeals, on the Constitutionality of the Legal Tender Acts (27 N. Y., 400), June 27, 1863. His Appearance and Style. "In person rather insignificant, and in manner apparently somewhat theatrical, he possesses none or few of the graces of the orator. But he possesses something which is more effective: namely, the indefinable magnetism which enables some rare men to fascinate their auditors. In our opinion, Mr. Porter comes nearer to being a genius than any other man at our bar. If we were called on to point out his most prominent and potent characteristic, we should say it is his dramatic power.. His trial of a cause from the start is a consecutive drama. No question and no suggestion but has some connection in his mind with his final argument. In summing up, * * |