He always tried a case fairly and honestly.
He never intentionally misrepresented the testimony of a witness or the arguments of an opponent.

He met both squarely, and, if he could not explain the one or answer the other, substantially admitted it.

He never misstated the law according to his own intelligent view of it.

Such was the transparent candor and integrity of his nature that he could not well or strongly argue a side or a cause that he thought wrong.

Of course, he felt it his duty to say what could be said, and to leave the decision to others; but there could be seen in such cases the inward struggle in his own mind.