He lived literally within the Augustan age of the profession in our State. With a Gaston, Daniel, and Ruffin on the bench, the logical and versatile Badger, the strong and rugged Saunders, the able, astute Haywood and their illustrious compeers as rivals at the bar, it is praise enough to say that he was ever equal to the emergency of any occasion.
He was the wisest man I ever knew. At his decease and almost for his whole life, though filling only a private station, he had come to be recognized as a distinct and efficient moral power in regulating the social and political welfare of the State. He lived almost to the utmost limit of the span allotted by the Psalmist to man. Satisfied with only some very brief honorable rest in extreme old age, he spent all these years of his life in active, unremitting, assiduous labor, and finished his career without a taint upon his honor or a stain upon his reputation. His life covers many epochs in our State and national history, and among them, the most solemn and imperative political crisis through which State and nation have yet passed. For forty years he was a leader in the legal profession, and for perhaps a quarter of a century he was the very head of the bar—facile princeps. Of all the gentlemen who composed the Raleigh bar, when I was first admitted to practice, he was the last relict—Badger, the two Busbees, Husted, Jones, Manly, Mariott, Miller, Rogers, Saunders, Sheppard, are all gone, sunk down—down with the tumult they made!
His thorough and life-long devotion to the enforcement of the laws preserving civil liberty, distinguished him among his fellows. No circumstances of danger—no allurements of ambition—no fear of consequences—no regard for himself, his family, his fortune, his future—no specious arguments of expediency ever tempted him upon any occasion to refrain from boldly and perseveringly, in public and in private, urging and enforcing his objections, whenever, wherever and in whatsoever form the liberty of the humblest citizen was threatened or invaded.
For solid wisdom, penetrating foresight, invariable sagacity, he had no peer, and he has left behind none like him. He had nothing but observation, reason and a sense of duty to guide him, and these he obeyed under trials and temptations which it is to be hoped, for the sake of public virtue, are not to become common. In the presence of such manly, unselfish, heroic virtue, I uncover my head and put the shoes from off my feet and lift up my heart to God in thankfulness for the example of this His faithful soldier and servant. According to his lights he did his duty—a hard and painful duty it was, and the event has proved that his lights were as true as the sun in heaven. Every man is to be judged, so far as human judgment is to be passed upon him at all, by the tenor of the motives which actuated him, and to which the main current of his life responded. Judged by this standard his course with reference to the late social war must command admiration even of those who most earnestly condemned his action.
I do not think Mr. Moore had genius, but his talents were great, his will imperative, his industry unbounded, and his habit of methodical and exhaustive analysis unequaled. He had no great oratorical gifts, except to those cultivated minds to which lucidity of arrangement and logical presentation of a subject are most pleasing and convincing. Even his voice when addressing an audience was harsh and unmusical. But he was the most successful lawyer we had, and I remember watching his mode of managing a cause with admiration and wonder, and studying it, as the most perfect model within my reach. In this respect his professional skill and acumen were, and to the very end continued to be, unapproachable.
On a more favorable occasion it is to be hoped that some person well qualified for the task will lay before the profession a full, critical and careful history and examination of some of the numerous great causes in which he appeared and his arguments therein; in one or the other of which, as I verily believe, is exhibited every variety of intellectual excellence demanded for the elucidation and application of law in the courts of justice. His briefs in the State vs. Will, Moye vs. May, and Walton vs. Gatling are all models; each one has its distinct method and discloses a special excellence.
During the period I knew him, which extended through a quarter of a century, I never knew him to make a mistake of judgment. I do not mean that he never, upon some passing matter, erred in act or opinion, but in great crises when the waters of revolution were out and the files of political experience furnished no precedent for guidance—when all was on the hazard and he was called upon to use his wisdom in suggesting the best means applicable to the production of the best results, in predicting what results must follow from one course of action or another—he was almost infallible—his predictions were prophecies. His bare opinions had come to have in this community the weight of actual knowledge. "He was a man, take him for all in all, I shall not look upon his like again."
And in this connection let me say one word of a single episode in Mr. Moore's career, with which I have heard some thoughtless persons find fault. I speak of his well known hostility to secession and the Confederate cause. Surely those who impute blame to him have not considered his motives, his opinions, his conduct. Mr. Moore was by conviction a Federalist, both in politics and in the construction which, as a lawyer, he gave to the Constitution of the United States; he denied always, from first to last, the right of secession; he thought the only safety for his people, for the State, for the nation, for civil liberty even, was in the perpetuation of the Union; with his far-seeing intellect he knew and foretold the fierce struggle to come, the bloodshed, the evil passions, the crime, the suffering which would accompany it, its failure, the dreadful consequences, the perils to all civil liberty and all rights of person and property which would result, many of which are not yet past. He made no secret of his opinions and his feelings at any time—he was constant, in season and out of season, in proclaiming them from the housetops, and in endeavoring to convert others to his views; to him the result—the failure—was always present in all its shocking and useless reality; and when the good opinion of his neighbors and friends (which he cherished as much as any man) was at stake, and his liberty, his future, his reputation, his very life, was on the hazard of a die—he yet stood steadfast as the Northern Star—"Of whose true, fixed and resting quality there is no fellow in the firmament."
Which of his faultfinders would have done as much under like circumstances? Which one of us, I pray you, oh! hot-blooded secessionists, Hebrew of the Hebrews, if we had had his prevision, would have obeyed the dictates of our convictions and have exhibited such courageous virtue?
But, in my opinion, the Revised Code is the greatest monument he has left of the excellent and rare endowments of his mind; especially does it illustrate his profound knowledge of the written law of North Carolina at the date of its preparation. Lord Coke said of Littleton's treatise on tenures, "I affirm, and take upon me to maintain, against all opposites whatsoever, that it is a work of as absolute perfection in its kind, and as free from error, as any book that I have ever known to be written of any human learning"; and I venture to adopt his language as applicable to the Revised Code. Its great and surpassing excellence can only be fully perceived and appreciated by those who have studied it, and have long had occasion to apply it practically. They will have seen that it is far more than a bare compilation of statutes—far more than a codification of existing acts of Assembly, but that it has amended and perfected every such act in those particulars in which it has been proved by experience to be imperfect. It indicates a profound and exact knowledge of every principle which had been established, and every decision which had then been made by our courts, and an exhaustive, methodical analysis of the fundamental principles of the common law.