ach
case, to make his conduct of it a perfect piece of work, regardless of
compensation.

John M. Butler, the partner of Senator McDonald, and one of the best
lawyers the Central Western states ever produced, was so careful of
pleadings and briefs that he would not endure a blurred or broken
letter, and bad punctuation was a source of real irritation to him.
Many times have I, as his clerk, required his printer to take out an
indistinct letter. It was Mr. Butler's ideal to achieve perfection as
nearly as possible.

The most perfect legal argument I ever heard occupied less than an
hour. Not a word was wasted. Not a single digression weakened the
force of the reasoning. Not a decision was read from. It was assumed
that the learned judges before whom the cause was being heard knew
something of the law and the decisions themselves.

You see the same thing in its highest form in Marshall's decisions. I
once advised a class of law students to commit to memory half a dozen
of Marshall's greatest opinions. After years of reflection I think I
shall stand by that advice.

In making an argument before a court or jury, remember that the most
important thing is the statement of your case. A case properly stated
is a case nearly won. Beware of digression. It calls attention from
your main idea. It is a fault, too, which is well-nigh universal. I
advise every young lawyer, as a practise in accurate thought, to
demonstrate a theorem of geometry every morning.

There is no such remorseless logic as that of logarithms. It will
produce a habit of definiteness, directness, and concentration
invaluable to you. The young gallants of a century ago used to
practise fencing for an hour each morning. Why should not you do the
same thing in intellectual fencing--you, the devotee of the noblest
swordsmanship known to man, the swordsmanship of the law?

Do not waste too much time quoting precedents to a court; it produces
weariness rather than conviction on the part of the judge, who himself
is a daily maker of decisions and knows their value. He knows the
stifling mass of precedents, and sighs under them. It is rare that
more than two cases should be cited in oral argument on any given
point. Those cases ought to be the most controlling you can find--not
necessarily the latest. They should be cases decided upon reason
rather than upon authority. Your true judge likes to syllogize.

Do not, however, go into a court without having thorough