Memoirs of Aaron Burr, vol 2 | Page 7

concision or condensation was a peculiar trait in his mind. He would reduce an elaborate argument, extending over many sheets of paper, to a single page. Had he written the history of our revolution, which he once commenced, he would probably have compressed the whole of it in a single volume."
In his professional practice, he never solicited from an opponent any favour or indulgence any more than he would have done from an armed foe; but, at the same time, rarely withheld any courtesy that was asked of him, not inconsistent with the interest of his clients. He was a strict practitioner, almost a legal martinet, and so fond of legal technicalities, that he never omitted an opportunity of trying his own skill and that of opposite counsel in special pleas, demurrers, and exceptions in chancery, notwithstanding the risk of paying costs sometimes, though rarely incurred, and of protracting a cause.
The labour of drawing his pleadings and briefs, however, at least after his return from Europe in 1812, always devolved upon others; and, with marginal notes of all the authorities which had been consulted, from the year books downward, which were sometimes in law French and law Latin, to the last reports in England and some half a dozen of our states, in which may be properly called law English, were submitted to his critical acumen; his thousand doubts, suggestions, hints, and queries, which would start from his mind like a flash, and for a moment seem to throw into inextricable confusion what had been laboriously, and perhaps profoundly studied, at last would most generally be adopted without material alterations or additions.
Colonel Burr's mind cannot be said to have been a comprehensive one. It was acute, analytical, perspicacious, discriminating, unimaginative, quick to conceive things in detail, but not calculated to entertain masses of ideas. He would never have gained celebrity as an author; but as a critic, upon whatever subject, his qualifications have rarely been surpassed, though in literary matters and the fine arts they were only exhibited in conversation. His colloquial powers were impressive and fascinating, though he generally seemed a listener rather than a talker; but never failed to say a proper thing in the proper place."
As a public speaker, his ideas were not diffuse enough; or rather, he appeared to lack fluency to make a long, and what is called an elaborate argument upon any matter, however grave or momentous. In a cause in which he was employed as associate counsel with General Hamilton, an incident occurred, in relation to Chief Justice Yates, not unworthy recording. It speaks a language that cannot he misunderstood, and is demonstrative of the influence which he had over the feelings as well as the minds of his hearers. It was the celebrated case of Le Guen vs. Gouverneur and Kemble, one of the most important, in regard to the legal questions and amount of property involved, which at that day had been brought before our tribunals, and in which case he completely triumphed. Only a short period previous to his decease Colonel Burr remarked, that on this occasion he had acquired more money and more reputation as a lawyer than on any other during his long practice at the bar. A letter was addressed to Thurlow Weed, Esq., requesting him to apply to the Hon. John Van Ness Yates, son of the late chief justice, and ascertain whether the incident, as reported, was founded on fact. To that letter Mr. Weed received the following answer.

JOHN VAN NESS YATES TO THURLOW WEED.
Albany, July 8th, 1837.
DEAR SIR,
After some difficulty in finding my father's notes of the argument in the case of Le Guen vs. Gouverneur and Kemble, I have ascertained that the account you showed me, given in the letter of M. L. Davis, Esq., is in the main correct. My father's notes of General Hamilton's argument are very copious. Those of Colonel Burr's are limited, in this way--"Burr for plaintiff, I. The great principles of commercial law which apply to this case are"--then follows a hiatus of some lines. After which, as follows:--
"II. The plaintiff"--another hiatus.
"III. !!!!!" and this concludes all I can find.
Hamilton's eloquence was (if I may be allowed the expression) argumentative, and induced no great elevation or depression of mind, consequently could be easily followed by a note taker. Burr's was more persuasive and imaginative. He first enslaved the heart, and then led captive the, head. Hamilton addressed himself to the head only. I do not, therefore, wonder that Burr engrossed all the faculties of the hearer. Indeed, I have heard him often at the bar myself, and always with the same effect. I do not recollect, in conversation, any particular allusion of my father's to Burr's argument in the case of Le Guen vs. Gouverneur and Kemble; but