ar man in the full
vigor of manhood, General Toombs returned actively to the practice of
law. He was not long in turning to practical account his great
abilities. Success soon claimed him as an old favorite. Business
accumulated and the ex-senator and soldier found himself once more at
the head of the bar of Georgia. Large fees were readily commanded. He
was employed in important cases in every part of Georgia, and the
announcement that Robert Toombs was to appear before judge and jury was
enough to draw large crowds from city and country. His old habits of
indomitable industry returned. He rode the circuits like a young
barrister again. He was a close collector of claims, an admirable
administrator, a safe counselor, and a bold and fearless advocate. In a
short time General Toombs' family found themselves once more in comfort,
and he was the same power with the people that he had always been.

Cut off from all hope of official promotion, scorning to sue for
political pardon, he strove to wield in the courts some of the power he
forfeited in politics. He figured largely in cases of a public nature,
and became an outspoken tribune of the people. He did not hesitate to
face the Supreme Court of Georgia, then made up of Republican judges,
and attack the laws of a Republican legislature. Among the bills passed
at that time to popularize the legislature with the people, was a series
of liberal homestead and exemption laws. They were the relief measures
of 1868. By these schemes, at once rigorous and sweeping, millions of
dollars were lost in Georgia. They were intended to wipe out old debts,
especially contracts made during the war, and Governor Bullock had
appointed a Supreme Court which sustained them. These laws were
abhorrent to Toombs. He thundered against them with all the powers of
his learning and eloquence. When he arose in court, there stood with
him, he believed, not only the cause of his client, but the honor of the
whole State of Georgia. It was much easier to seduce a poverty-stricken
people by offering them measures of relief than to drive them by the
bayonet or to subject them to African domination. In the case of
Hardeman against Downer, in June, 1868, he declared before the Supreme
Court that these homestead laws put a premium on dishonesty and robbed
the poor man of his capital. "But we must consider the intention of the
Act," said the Court. "Was it not the intention of the legislature to
prevent the coll