bled, I cannot forbear saying, that it was my privilege to know, and it is now my happiness to remember him, as a Christian brother. To a strong and enlightened faith in divine revelation-a faith which not only withstood infidelity in the outer world, but had triumphed over the more dangerous enemy within-he added a personal acquaintance with its teachings, and a felt experience of their power, which enabled him to encourage and confirm the faith of others, while at the same time he exhibited a tenderness of feeling and docility, and humbleness of mind, which plainly showed that he understood the conditions, and cheerfully submitted to them, by which every soul, however richly endowed, must enter into the kingdom of God. His enlarged and catholic spirit, while he held to his own convictions and preferences, extended to all the same freedom of conscience which he claimed for himself, and embraced in Christian love the whole family of believers. The removal of such a man from the bench and the profession, even at his advanced age, is a great public loss. This we all feel; but we feel more acutely the sundering of those personal ties by which he was bound to us. The grief is great, nor is it rendered the less, but rather the greater, that it is divided among so many. The Judges who shared with him the duties and communion of the bench; those who yet survive, of his early associates at the bar; the associates, who, from time to time, appeared before him within these walls; the junior members of our profession, to whom he was only known by his writings and decisions—each and all these, know and feel that a brilliant light has been quenched; that a great jurist and good man has been forever withdrawn from us. If each and all these mourn for a professional brother, or a personal friend, I, more than any, or all of them, may well give way to these feelings; for, out of the immediate circle of his family, or close connections, I suppose there is no one to whom he has been longer or more intimately known; and to know him intimately was to admire, to esteem, and to love him. In the labors and studies with Mr. DUER, to which I have referred, have been spent many of my happiest and most instructive days. For, while we investigated, with a single eye to the good of our fellow-citizens and the glory of our profession, the whole body of our written law, and labored, through days and nights of toil, to give fit expression to those parts of it upon which we were employed, we lightened those toils by frequent excursions into other, and sometimes widely different walks. Considerably my senior in years, and far-very farmy superior in gifts and knowledge, he was in the law, and in every other department, emphatically "my guide, philosopher, and friend." Not to speak of his lucid explanations of the grounds and reason of the law, and the information he was so well qualified to give on legal ques

tions continually coming into discussion in our daily tasks, he delighted to converse, not only on the more general topics of philosophy, politics, and letters, but on the momentous questions which grow out of man's immortal nature, and the relations in which he stands to his Creator, Governor, and Judge. How great were his conversational powers! With what facility and richness he poured forth from the stores of his well-furnished mind, and by the aid of his wonderful memory, wise and worthy thoughts and suggestions, on subjects which awakened those powers, must be well known to many of those now present; indeed, to all who have had the opportunity of familiar acquaintance with him. And now what shall I say more? When I think of the loss which you -brethren of the bench and of the bar-have all sustained-of the special loss which has fallen upon me--and of the far heavier loss which has fallen with crushing weight upon his afflicted family-I could almost cry out with one of old,—

"Quis desiderio sit pudor ant modus,
Tam cari capitis."

But, blessed be God, this sad question of the Roman poet, and the wail of hopeless sorrow with which he replies to it,-these are not the utterings in which we are either required or permitted to indulge. Death has, indeed, removed from our mortal sight the upright Judge, -the eloquent orator, the loving friend, father, husband,—and therefore we must needs sorrow, and deeply sorrow; but the Saviour in whom he believed, "hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light, through the Gospel." The precious trust, which, on the last Lord's Day morning, at the hallowed hour of prayer, was then committed to Him by the friend and brother, to whose virtues we dedicate these imperfect but sincere expressions of affection and regret, -this precious trust that Saviour is able to keep, and will assuredly keep, "against that day." With these thoughts and hopes, let us comfort one another; and in them let us seek that preparation which each of us, in his turn, will soon need for his own departure.

Mr. HIRAM KETCHUM seconded the resolutions, and spoke as follows:

Mr. President,-In seconding the resolutions just read, I will take the liberty of submitting a few remarks.

It is sad, very sad, to think that our venerable friend and learned brother, has been compelled to leave for ever these places and scenes in which he greatly delighted. Yet we, his survivors, find some consola tion for our bereavement in remembering that our friend was permitted D. VI.

B

to pass the boundary of time usually allotted to human life; that, at his decease, he filled an elevated and useful position, to which he had been twice elected by the choice, fairly expressed, of his fellow citizens; that although we, who daily saw him, could not fail to notice that his bodily strength had begun to fail, that his step was less firm and elastic than of yore, yet his mind was wholly unimpaired, the vast treasures of his memory were yet subject to his command, his intellectual faculties were full of vigor, and his heart yet glowed with professional zeal. He died full of years and full of honors! There is no cause, on account of the departed, for deep, much less agonizing sorrow. There is another fact, connected with his last illness and death, personal to himself, which it is pleasant for friends to remember. Judge DUER was not, like some members of our profession whose death we have heretofore had occasion to deplore, suddenly called away. He was not compelled, in an instant of time, to take the last review of a whole life, but he was gently admonished, he received timely notice to quit, and it cannot be doubted that he availed himself of this notice to collect his powers for this great event, and to prepare to die with calmness and dignity, and with the true Christian's glorious hope of the future.

Mr. President, the only profitable use which we can make of this and all similar occasions, is to exhibit such traits and characteristics of the departed as are worthy of commendation, and hold them up to the admiration of the survivors. There were many characteristics of our departed friend worthy of imitation, especially by the young members of the profession.

JOHN DUER was born in the city of Albany, the capitol of the state. He was born in the year 1782, memorable for giving birth to a number of very distinguished Americans. Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Martin Van Buren, and Thomas J. Oakley, I believe, as well as JOHN DUER, were born in 1782, of whom M. Van Buren alone survives, in a green old age.

Mr. DUER was a self-made man. It is common to meet with persons in society who rejoice in proclaiming themselves self-made men. These persons not unfrequently possess many excellences, but modesty is not usually numbered among these excellences. Being self-made men, they must necessarily be a little better made than their neighbors. Mr. DUER did not boast of being self-made, nor, out of his family circle, was the fact ever spoken of; I have learned it from his family since his decease. His early education was very imperfect, and he joined the army of the United States at the age of sixteen years. He served two years, and then entered the office of General Hamilton, as a law student. He found himself, at the age of eighteen, so deficient in

knowledge, as to be utterly unprepared to enter upon a course of legal studies. He then devoted himself to preliminary studies, being confined to them, not unfrequently, eighteen hours a day. He made himself a thorough scholar; he acquired a knowledge of the ancient classics, and of the Italian and French languages. He could, as I am informed, read the Latin, Italian, and French languages without the consciousness that he was perusing a foreign tongue. From these studies he became a master of his own language; very few men could write or speak the English tongue with more rapidity and fluency, with more accuracy and elegance, than Mr. DUER. Those who knew him best will say that he was unsurpassed in these accomplishments.

He then devoted himself, with all the ardor of his ardent nature, to the study of the law, with a determination to excel in his profession. How well he succeeded we have already been told. He was no mere case lawyer, yet few in his profession had studied all the leading cases more diligently, or could refer to them with more readiness, than himself. He had thoroughly studied the principles of law in the writings and productions of the great masters of jurisprudence.

After what has been said by the learned gentlemen who have preceded me, it is quite unnecessary that I should further dwell upon the learning and intellectual accomplishments of our departed friend; but he possessed one other characteristic, which has been adverted to by the president. He was a man of courage—of moral courage. No man is fit to be a Judge, however learned, amiable, and industrious, and, I may add, however honest he may be, who is not a man of courage. There were two memorable instances, in my recollection, in which he exhibited this quality.

In the year 1843 he was a member of the diocesan convention of his own Church. In the annual communication made by the bishop to that convention, he made a statement, and declared an opinion, which Mr. DUER believed to be erroneous, and which he thought were calculated to do injury and work injustice. Whether or not he was right in this connection it is not necessary that I express an opinion, but that he was fully convinced in his own mind that he was right, I have not a particle of doubt. Actuated by this conviction, it was impossible for him to remain silent, and the only way that he could express his dissent, was by offering a protest. He did offer it, although he knew he was opposed by a large majority of the body in which it was offered. The protest, and the manner in which it was met by the bishop, caused great excitement at the time. I have adverted to the occurrence to illustrate the moral courage of Mr. DUER.

Again, in 1851, there came to this country an illustrious stranger

from Europe, who had enacted a conspicuous part in the struggle of Hungary for liberty. The fame of his patriotism, his sacrifices, his extraordinary zeal and eloquence, had preceded him, and prepared the people of the United States to receive him with open arms and sympathizing hearts. When he arrived and had been received by the shouts of the multitude, he saw fit to suggest and argue that the principles of non-interference in the controversies of foreign nations, recommended by Washington in his farewell address to his countrymen, were erroneous, and he invited our government to violate those principles in behalf of his own oppressed Hungary. By many of our most distinguished countrymen, public men and others, the stranger Kossuth was allowed to proceed in this course without opposition. Being a distinguished member of the bar in his own country, he was invited to a complimentary entertainment by the bar of this city. He accepted the invitation, and on the occasion of meeting the bar, he availed himself of the opportunity to advocate the opinions to which I have adverted. A toast was given to the judiciary, and Judge DUER was called on to reply to it. In making this reply, and in a manner most respectful and deferential to the guest of the occasion, he maintained the American doctrine promulgated by the father of his country. This protest was again received amid a storm of excitement. No matter, the protest had been made, it could not be withdrawn; it had been made by a man with a heart full of American feeling; a man who had served under Washington and Hamilton; it had been made by a member of an independent judiciary; it must stand. It did stand-it does stand. When the bar had time to grow cool and reflect, the action of Judge DUER was heartily approved by that body, and the great community sympathized with him.

The conclusion to which, from these instances and what we know of Judge DUER, we are inevitably drawn is this, that when he heard the wrong asserted upon a matter of importance, he could not by his silence acquiesce, or seem to acquiesce; there was that within him which compelled him to speak out without calculating the consequences to himself. HE MUST SPEAK. For this instinctive courage I honor his memory.

I hope, sir, I am able adequately to appreciate the learning and industry of our departed friend, and admire his eloquence, but above and beyond these, I honor his moral courage. As a tribute to this high quality, and speaking for myself only, and not assuming to represent any other man, or set of men, I crave permission to weave with my own hands a garland to hang upon his tomb.

I second the resolutions.