CHAPTER XV

MORE LAW CASES

In the summer of 1874 the city of Des Moines was thrown into a state of

considerable excitement by the fact of finding the body of a murdered

man on the sidewalk near the corner of Walnut and Second street. There

was a house of bad repute in the vicinity, and the coroner's jury made

a thorough investigation, seemingly as far as practicable, as to the

cause and origin of the death. The inhabitants of the house referred to

were examined under oath, and the women who boarded there denied any

knowledge whatever of the cause of the man's death. The Governor of the

state offered a reward of five hundred dollars for the discovery and

conviction of the murderer. At the next session of the grand jury of

Polk county two of the women boarders at the house of bad repute

referred to, and who had denied all knowledge of the murder, appeared

before the grand jury and testified with much detail that Charles

Howard, a man who had frequented their house, had been guilty of the

murder and had carried out the dead body and laid it upon the sidewalk.

The grand jury indicted Howard accordingly for murder in the first

degree. The trial came on at the December term of the Polk county

district court, and in view of the public excitement, which was largely

kept alive by the daily press, Howard, by his attorney, made a motion

for a change of venue on the ground of prejudice of the inhabitants of

the county. Under the peculiar provisions of our statute, counter

affidavits were permitted for the purpose of showing that there was no

feeling in the community that would prevent Howard from receiving a

fair trial. The sheriff informed me that in walking two squares from

the court house he had met two hundred men who were willing to sign

such counter affidavits, and had obtained a large number of them, which

were filed accordingly. The district judge, H. W. Maxwell, overruled

the motion for a change of venue, and the trial proceeded. The only

testimony introduced in the conviction of Howard was that of the two

bad women who had testified before the coroner's jury that they had no

knowledge whatever in regard to the killing of Johnson. I was not

personally engaged in any way as an attorney in this case, but about

ten o 'clock at night after the jury had retired to consider their

verdict, Judge Maxwell sent for me to come to the court house for

consultation. I found he had also sent for a like purpose for Mr. D. O.

Finch, one of the oldest members of the Polk county bar. The judge

advised us that the jury had not agreed upon their verdict, but that

some one had through the bailiff sent a note in to the jury room

threatening the jury with violence in case they failed to convict the

defendant. Judge Maxwell was much excited and asked Mr. Finch and

myself what he ought to do under the circumstances. We advised him by

all means to have the defendant conveyed for safe keeping to some place

outside of the county, in charge of the sheriff, and to have it done

secretly and immediately lest the mob might seize the accused and

commit violence. We also advised him to discharge the jury from a

further consideration of the case, as their verdict found under the

influence of threats would be worthless, and that he ought also in

vindication of his own court to thoroughly investigate the question as

to who was guilty in sending or permitting a threat to be communicated

to the jury. Instead of being influenced by our advice Judge Maxwell

had the jury brought into the courtroom for further instructions, and

told them that great excitement and feeling prevailed in the community

in regard to the case, and that it was important that the jury should

not disagree but should find a verdict in the case. The next morning

the jury brought in a verdict of guilty, and the defendant waiving time

for sentence, Judge Maxwell had the prisoner brought into court. The

courtroom was crowded by an excited mob, and the judge took occasion to

harangue the prisoner, denouncing his conduct in the most vehement

manner. He then sentenced the prisoner to imprisonment in the

penitentiary for life. That night the excited mob broke open the jail,

took the prisoner from his cell with a rope tied around his neck, and

hung him to a lamp post in the court house square. The opinion of most

of the persons who paid any attention to this trial was that there was

no reliable evidence of Howard's guilt, and that the probabilities were

that the whole case was manufactured for the purpose of securing the

reward offered for his conviction. Whether or not the reward was ever

paid I have not been able to ascertain, but certain it is that the

cowardice of the court and the indiscretion of the public press were

responsible for the murder of a man who, to say the least of it, was

never proved guilty by any competent evidence.

We had among the distinguished judges that acted as teachers in our law

school at Transylvania University a very eminent jurist who sometimes

when he felt merry treated the class to that which was not only

instructive but also entertaining. On one occasion he delivered to the

class the following:

Young Gentlemen: You will find that the general principles of the

law are few and easily comprehended, but in their application to

the ever-varying transactions of human life the best of minds will

differ, hence arises what we denominate the glorious uncertainties

of the law whereby we have our bread.

The case that I am about to cite would satisfy the most credulous that

there are other causes that produce uncertain results besides the

difference in applying the general principles of the law to different

cases.

Section 3, article XI of the constitution of the state of Iowa,

provided as follows: "No county or other political or municipal

corporation shall be allowed to become indebted in any manner or for

any purpose to an amount in the aggregate exceeding five per centum on

the value of the taxable property within such county or corporation, to

be ascertained by the last state or county tax list previous to the

incurring of such indebtedness." In November, 1870, the taxable

property, real and personal, within and subject to taxation by the said

city of Des Moines, as ascertained by the last state and county tax

list, amounted to the sum of $3,140,805 and no more, and that five per

centum on said amount was only the sum of $157,040.25. In the month of

May, 1869, the city had by ordinance authorized the issuing of bonds to

the amount of $50,000 for the purpose of funding outstanding warrants,

and afterwards in May, 1870, they had enacted a further ordinance

authorizing the issuing of bonds for funding outstanding warrants on

the city treasurer to the amount of $75,000, all of which bonds had

been duly issued and were outstanding at the time of the commencement

of the suit hereinafter mentioned. In addition to these bonds

aggregating $125,000 there were also outstanding warrants upon the

treasury to the amount of $55,000, making an aggregate indebtedness of

the city $180,000. On the 7th of July, 1870, the city passed a further

ordinance authorizing the issuing of bonds to the amount of $130,000

for the building and repair of certain bridges across the Des Moines

and Raccoon rivers, thus exceeding the constitutional limit upon the

city's indebtedness.

George Sneer, a citizen and taxpayer of the city of Des Moines, applied

to me to bring a suit to test the validity of this last bond issue of

$130,000, informing me that the bonds had been placed in the hands of

B. F. Allen, then a banker of the city of Des Moines. I informed him I

was willing to take the case provided that the suit should be

maintained in good faith, that I was satisfied that the bonds were

absolutely void whether in the hands of Allen or any other person,

being issued in plain violation of the constitution of the state, and

that every person purchasing any evidence of indebtedness against the

city was bound to take notice of the existing indebtedness of the city

and was charged with knowledge thereof, as it was a matter of record

and easily ascertained. Mr. Sneer informed me that he desired the

question of the validity of the bonds tested in good faith, and that if

I undertook the case I might prosecute it to the end. He contracted to

pay me the sum of two hundred dollars for my services, and I

accordingly prepared the bill for a perpetual injunction against the

city council, city treasurer, and B. F. Allen. No one was made

defendant to the petition except Allen and members of the city council

and the city treasurer. Answers were filed by Mr. Withrow for B. F.

Allen and by Seward Smith, his partner, for the city of Des Moines and

members of the city council, and the case was submitted on bill and

answer. There was no denial of the facts set forth in the petition in

regard to the indebtedness of the city, nor did anyone appear in the

case claiming to be bona fide purchasers of the bonds, but the answer

of Allen was to the effect that he acted as agent for the city and had

sold the bonds to one George P. Opdike & Co. of New York City. Maxwell

was judge of the district court, and to my surprise entered the

following decree in the case:

This cause coming on for final hearing on the plaintiff's petition,

and answer made thereto, and the defendant's answer and cross

petition, and thus heard upon the pleadings alone, and the court

having heard the argument of counsel, inspected the said record and

being fully advised in the premises, doth order, adjudge and

decree, that the plaintiff's bill be dismissed; that the bridge

bonds described therein be treated as in every respect binding

obligations of the city of Des Moines according to the tenor

thereof, and that the parties thereto and those in privity with

them be forever concluded from asserting or maintaining any defense

against the payment of said bonds, and the interest thereon, on the

grounds that the same were irregularly issued in excess of the

constitutional limitation upon the power of the said city to become

indebted; that the money now in possession of the defendant Allen,

be applied by the proper officers of the city of Des Moines to the

purposes for which the same was raised; and that the defendant have

and recover the costs herein taxed at ---- dollars, and that

execution issue therefor. To which plaintiff excepts.

Upon the rendition of this decree I immediately entered an appeal in

behalf of George Sneer, and perfected the same by filing the proper

abstract of record in the supreme court of the state. The cause was

submitted to the supreme court on printed arguments on April 4, 1871.

At the October term of the supreme court, being an argument term held

at Davenport at that date, the supreme court really decided the case by

an opinion written by Judge Beck in behalf of a majority of the court,

and the opinion was sent by Justice Day to the clerk about the time the

court was to adjourn, with orders to file the same, and Mr. Charles

Linderman, the clerk of the court, informed me that he had actually

marked the opinion "Filed," and that about the time that the filing was

completed Judge C. C. Cole, then one of the judges of the supreme

court, entered the clerk's office and filed with him a paper signed by

George Sneer dismissing his appeal, and that he entered upon the

records of the court the following entry: "On application of appellant,

it is ordered by the court that the appeal herein be, and the same is

hereby dismissed."

At the ensuing regular term of the supreme court held at Des Moines,

December 5, 1871, the following entry was made in the case: "At the

argument term held at Davenport in October last, on application of

George Sneer per se, appellant herein, the court ordered that the

appeal be dismissed." Before this dismissal either at Davenport or at

Des Moines Sneer had settled with me and paid me the fee agreed upon,

and I had nothing further to do with the case except to reproach him

for violating his agreement with me that I should prosecute the case to

a final result.

It appeared from the sequel that Judge Cole had also prepared a

dissenting opinion in the case, and these two opinions, that written

by Judge Beck as the opinion of the court, and the one written by

himself were both published in the _Western Jurist_ the ensuing

January, the one marked "B" and the other marked "C," but suppressing

the fact that the opinion marked "B" was the opinion of a majority of

the court, and that none of the judges, except Judge Cole, agreed with

the opinion marked "C;" and having the following extraordinary note

printed in connection with the opinions, Judge Cole being then the

editor of the _Western Jurist_: "These two articles, this and the

following which advocates a different view of the same question, are

from members of the profession in Iowa occupying equal prominence

before the public, and whose opinions are entitled to consideration."

Whilst these opinions do not give the detail of the case that was

submitted to the court and to which they relate, yet by carefully

reading them you can easily see that they refer to an actual

controversy that had been pending before the supreme court. The

supreme court of Iowa subsequently decided the question that was

involved in the case of Sneer vs. the City of Des Moines, establishing

the principle as applied to this transaction to the effect that the

bonds were absolutely void in the hands even of an innocent purchaser

if such had been the case. See

McPherson vs. Foster, 43 Iowa, page 48.

Mosher vs. Independent School Dist., 44 Iowa, page 122.

French vs. Burlington, 42 Iowa, page 614.

Andrews vs. Orient Fire Ins. Co., 88 Iowa, page 579.

Holliday vs. Hildebrandt, 66 Northwestern Reporter, page 89.

The dismissal of the appeal by Sneer left the decree entered by Judge

Maxwell in full force as though no appeal had ever been taken, and the

parties procuring this result, after they had full knowledge of the

fact that the majority of the judges of the supreme court held the

bonds void, are fully entitled to all of the credit that their conduct

merits, and I only record the matter here as a matter of history and as

vindication of myself and to exonerate myself from any responsibility

for the final result, as I had no knowledge of the dismissal of the

appeal until long after the thing was done.

I have within the past few weeks examined the archives of the supreme

court, and find that the original opinion of the court written by

Judge Beck signed "B" and printed in the _Western Jurist_ (see Vol.

VI-1872) cannot be found, and also the paper signed by George Sneer

dismissing the appeal is missing from the files of the court. I

presume the city council, as they had by their attorney asked to be

enjoined from disputing the validity of these bonds, had obtained a

decree against themselves to that effect, very willingly paid the

bonds when they matured, but of this I have no actual knowledge.

CHAPTER XVI

BIRTH OF A SON AND PERSONAL INCIDENTS

Leaving the history of political and professional for the present, it

will now be necessary to revert and give in some detail matters more

personal and affecting more nearly my own private life. I have already

given an account of my marriage and removal to Des Moines.

On the 18th of February, 1863, my wife and myself were made happy by

the birth of our only child. This hope deferred came after ten years of

waiting. Whilst the child was still an infant I was compelled to be

absent on professional business at Indianola in Warren county. I

concluded my business as soon as possible and hurried home, feeling an

unpleasant premonition that everything was not all right with the

mother and the child. Heavy rains had swollen the streams between

Indianola and Des Moines, and as I approached the small bridge crossing

the creek about four miles south of Des Moines, I found the water

running several feet deep over the floor of the bridge. I knew this

made the passage very dangerous because frequently such floods took

away the flooring and made it probable that the horse and buggy in

which I was riding might be cast into the flood of the stream. After

some hesitation, however, I determined to take the risk and plunged

into the stream accordingly. I got safely over and was much relieved

when I found myself again on solid ground. I got home a little after

dark and found an old lady who had been employed as nurse to the little

one, who was squalling violently, engaged in trotting the infant upon

her knee, as my wife lay on the bed on the very verge of hysterics. The

next morning early I put out to find a nurse woman possessed of more

flesh and patience, and the domestic trouble subsided. The first six

months after the arrival of the little stranger my wife could scarcely

obtain an hour's consecutive rest. The normal condition of the child

appeared to be colicky. As I had to be engaged throughout the day in my

business we finally established a second bedroom and I divided the time

at night as well as I could with my wife, taking my turn at walking the

floor at "half dress." The child, however, proved a great comfort to us

and a pleasure, though for many months it was the pursuit of pleasure

under difficulties.

At the approach of the following year we were surprised by a visit from

the wife of Mr. Charles McMeekin, my wife's brother, who then resided

at Cincinnati, Ohio. His wife brought with her two children, a boy and

a girl, she herself being something of an invalid. It was very

difficult at that time, as it has been ever since, to obtain competent

domestic help, and after entertaining this lady and her two children

for several months I found it necessary to notify my brother-in-law

that situated as I was it was no longer convenient for me to entertain

his family, and they accordingly left us and went to live at a boarding

house kept by Mrs. Washburn on Fourth street. The next summer, at the

request of my wife, I consented to take one of the sons of her sister

Eliza, and I furnished the means for his transportation from Newport,

Kentucky, to Des Moines. I tried to give this boy instructions in

reading, writing, and arithmetic, but found him not inclined to study,

and especially disinclined to afford any help or assistance about the

house. He had been raised under the shadow of a peculiar institution

and had imbibed a strong prejudice against anything like work. After

worrying with him for three or four months and being unable to make

anything out of him, I sent him home to his mother.

In 1849 I purchased two lots on the northeast corner of Center and

Fifth streets and removed my old buildings from my place on Fourth

street to the lots so purchased, making some improvements on the

buildings. These lots and buildings I afterwards sold and built a new

house on the old place on Fourth street.

In the fall of 1877, whilst on a visit to Ohio, my half-brother,

Charles R. Nourse, invited me to a private interview in which he

disclosed the fact to me that he was engaged to be married and wanted

me to do something to help him start in life in some kind of business.

The young man had not improved his opportunities for an education and

had spent several winters doing farm work. Before I had left home on

that occasion Sylvanus Edinburn had proposed to exchange a small farm

that he had in the suburbs of the city, of eighty-eight acres, for some

property I had acquired in town. It occurred to me that I might help

the boy by making the trade for this farm, and I accordingly told him

if he would have his mother send an invitation to his intended to come

and take dinner with us, and I liked the looks of the proposed wife I

would do something for him. He readily consented to this arrangement,

as did also his intended, and as she appeared to be an industrious and

bright young woman I came home and completed the purchase of the farm

which I obtained a deed for in March, 1878. There was no building on

the farm fit to live in. I had the old house moved onto the barn-lot

and fixed up for a granary, and built a new house at the expense of

about fifteen hundred dollars. In the following spring Charles R. with

his bride put in an appearance and I settled them in their new home,

where they lived happily for a number of years, but finally after about

fifteen years that most fatal of all curses, strong drink, got

possession of the young man and he went to the bad.

In the year of 1875 while visiting my sister at Tuscola, Illinois, I

found her in possession of a very large and increasing family. I was

especially pleased with her second daughter, Rose, then a young lady

about twenty years of age, and suggested to my sister that if she would

consent I would take Rose home with me and help her to an education.

Accordingly in 1876 Rose came to Des Moines and made her home with us.

My oldest brother, Joseph G. Nourse, had died at Cincinnati, Ohio, in

March, 1863, and about the year of 1876 I had induced his widow with

her three boys to remove to Des Moines, her oldest daughter Susan

having previously married to Mr. J. A. Jackson. I had before that time

induced Mr. Jackson and his wife also to remove to Des Moines and had

given Mr. Jackson employment in my office as an assistant. I had also

built on Fourth street a one story cottage of three rooms and a

kitchen, which they occupied for a year or two.

After my niece, Rose Vimont, had been with us for probably a year I

became satisfied that she had not succeeded in winning the affections

of my wife. Dr. C. R. Pomeroy had been our pastor at the Centenary

Methodist church for several years and had removed to Emporia, Kansas,

and taken charge of the State Normal School at that place. As Rose

desired to prepare herself for a teacher I went with her to Emporia in

the spring of 1877 and placed her at the institution under the care of

Dr. Pomeroy and his wife, where she remained for twelve months, when

school was suspended by reason of a fire which destroyed the buildings.

Rose returned to Des Moines and the following year, 1878, she taught a

small school in the brick schoolhouse on the northwest corner of my

farm, and had a room and boarded with my half brother, Charles R.

Afterwards she obtained a situation in the public schools of the city

of Des Moines and became a very successful teacher, remaining in the

city some fifteen years or more.

Soon after the purchase of my farm, in order further to promote the

interests of my brother and give him employment, I became interested in

the purchase and raising of pure bred short-horn cattle, committing to

my brother the immediate supervision and care of them on the farm, and

building some extensive barns and other out-buildings. I subsequently

bought from George Sneer 126 acres of valuable land in section 20,

township 79, range 24, and afterwards in July, 1879, bought

thirty-seven acres adjoining the tract that I had purchased of

Edinburn, making a part of the home farm. I also bought adjoining the

same original tract eleven acres from a man by the name of Parks.

Subsequently I contracted with a man by the name of Miller to put down

a bore hole on my land near the barns, with the hope of procuring

artesian water for my cattle and a flowing well. In this I was

disappointed, but I required the man to keep an accurate journal of the

different strata through which he bored, and at the distance of about

140 feet below the surface he went through a valuable strata of coal

averaging from four and one-half to six feet in thickness. I

subsequently leased the right to take coal from these lands to the

Keystone Coal Company, under which lease they sunk a shaft and operated

a mine on the home place for about thirteen years. The royalty from the

coal during these thirteen years more than paid the original purchase

price of this land, which cost me originally only about fifty dollars

per acre.

About the year 1878 I received a letter from my old friend, Amos

Harris, formerly a resident of Centerville, Iowa, then living at

Wichita, Kansas, informing me of the death of a man by the name of

Loring, who had been a former client of mine, residing at Indianola,

Iowa. He stated that Mr. Loring had left a widow and some five little

children, all girls, the youngest an infant only a few months old, and

that the family was left in a destitute condition; that upon

questioning Mrs. Loring she had told him that I had transacted some

business as attorney for herself and husband, and had sold a house and

lot in Indianola that they had deeded to me, with a promise upon my

part that after paying certain debts for the collection of which I was

attorney, if there was anything left they should have it. I had

realized about one hundred dollars over and above the amount paid out

and I immediately sent Mrs. Loring fifty dollars for the relief of her

immediate necessities, and afterwards paid her the balance. Some four

or five years after this Mrs. Loring came to Des Moines, bringing with

her this young child then about four or five years of age, stating that

she had a short time before that married a man by the name of Gregory,

that he was a man of considerable means but refused to support her

first husband's children, that she wished to make some arrangement to

have this young child cared for, that she had already disposed of her

older girls among her relatives. I introduced her to Mrs. Winkley, then

a resident of Des Moines, who kept a school for small children and

boarded and cared for them, a lady to whom my son had been going to

school and who was held in high estimation by her many friends. Mrs.

Gregory, as she then was, arranged with Mrs. Winkley to leave her

youngest child with her to be cared for, and left with me some money to

pay Mrs. Winkley from time to time, and also any other expenses that

might be incurred in the care of the child. Mrs. Winkley lived on Third

street within a block or two of our residence, and I frequently had

this child visit our home. My wife seemed to be interested in the child

and became attached to her, as I did also myself. Along about the first

of February, 1882, Mrs. Gregory came into my office in Des Moines,

stating that she had come to take her child Susie, as she could no

longer afford to bear the expense of her keeping with Mrs. Winkley. I

asked her if that was the only objection to the child remaining where

it was, and she said yes, she was very well satisfied but she was then

separated from her husband and was not able to pay the expense incident

to the child's keeping in her present situation. I asked her if she had

any home to which she could take the child, and she said no, that she

had employment at some sanitary institution but it really was not a

home for the little one. Upon the impulse of the moment and without any

very considerable thought upon the subject and having no consultation

with my wife, I told Mrs. Gregory to leave the child where it was and I

would bear the expense of caring for her. My income from my practice at

that time was averaging about $10,000 a year and I saw nothing very

serious about this undertaking, but upon reporting it to my wife she

expressed herself very much dissatisfied. Upon further reflection I

feared that after the child became older the mother might claim its

custody, and for my own protection I wrote out articles of adoption and

sent it to the mother, which she duly executed and returned it to me,

surrendering to me the full care, custody and control of the child,

which articles were duly recorded in Polk county, Iowa, on the 8th of

February, 1882. After remaining for several years with Mrs. Winkley I

sent this child to Chicago to the school of Miss Rebecca Rice, where

she remained for a number of years and received a very satisfactory

education. The enterprise, however, of caring for and educating this

child was not a success. My wife imbibed a strong prejudice against her

and never received her as a member of the family. When she was about

seventeen years of age she became dissatisfied and I sent her to her

mother, who was then living in California. She did not remain with her

mother, but afterwards came back to me and by her own wish and desire I

arranged to have her taught telegraphy by the superintendent of city

telegraphs at Chicago. In the meantime I ascertained that while she was

in California she had engaged herself to be married to a man by the

name of Guldager. I tried to dissuade her from this early and

inconsiderate engagement but she had not learned the lesson of

obedience and was not easily controlled by good advice or counsel. Her

California lover furnished her the means and she left without my

knowledge or consent and went to California to him when she was about

eighteen years of age, and was married.

After the dissolution of my partnership with Williamson & St. John in

1865, I continued the practice of law without any partner in business,

receiving assistance from time to time from young men who were studying

law in the office or who were beginners in the profession. None of

these, however, proved entirely satisfactory.

About the year 1870 Benjamin F. Kauffman, then a young man recently

graduated in the law department of the State University, came to me

desiring a situation in my office. I had been so disappointed in the

young men who had preceded him that I hesitated about making any

further engagement in that direction. Judge George G. Wright, however,

who had been one of Mr. Kauffman's preceptors at the law school, warmly

recommended him and urged me to give him a position in the office. He

was entirely without means and I offered finally to pay his board for

six months and take him upon trial. He asked me what he could expect

after the expiration of the six months. I told him that after six

months if I found that I could get along without him I should

discontinue the arrangement. He replied that that was a very hard

proposition. I told him no, that he was a young man in good health,

full of energy, and if he could not make himself a necessity to my

business in six months there was no reason why I should continue even

to pay his board. He said if he accepted my proposition, what would I

do for him at the end of the six months. I told him that if he made

himself a necessity to my business so that I could not get along

without him, he would then be master of the situation and I thought

there would be no trouble about arranging terms that would be entirely

satisfactory to him. He came into the office accordingly and applied

himself diligently to business. I occasionally stated to him some

question involved in cases I had pending and desired him to examine the

authorities and make a brief upon the question involved. He proved to

be of very material assistance, very industrious, with a clear mind

capable of understanding and analyzing and applying the cases he found

in the books bearing upon the question under investigation. At the end

of six months I arranged a partnership with him and he continued in

that relation for seventeen years, with much profit pecuniarily both to

himself and myself.

In the year of 1874 I exchanged a lot that I owned on Center street

with Mrs. McCauley for property on Fifth street, taking the deed in the

name of the firm of Nourse & Kauffman, upon which we built the

subsequent year a two story brick building, occupying the south half of

the first story for our law offices. We subsequently bought from Thomas

Boyd the forty-four feet on the east end of this purchase, giving us

the entire forty-four south feet of lot 2, block 22, of the original

town, and in the year 1886 we built a four story brick building

covering the entire surface of the lot.

On the dissolution of my partnership with Mr. Kauffman I formed a

partnership with my nephew, Clinton L. Nourse, and we removed into the

new building and occupied the front rooms of the second story. Mr.

Kauffman in the meantime entered into partnership with one N. T.

Guernsey and occupied rooms on the fourth floor of the building.

About the first of January, 1880, I received information that my

father, who had removed to and was then residing at Reynoldsburg, Ohio,

was very ill and not expected to live. I immediately went to

Reynoldsburg. My father was still conscious and able to recognize me,

but was very nearly approaching the end. My brother, John D., who

resided then at Lancaster, Ohio, was in attendance upon my father but

unable to arrest the disease. On the 3rd of January my father passed

away. After his death in conference with my step-mother in regard to

her future, I found she was disposed to join her sister, Mary Herron,

in building a small house in West Rushville and making her home there.

I was satisfied that this arrangement would not last. My step-mother

was a self-sacrificing woman and I knew her sister's disposition was

very exacting. It was also arranged that my half-sister Mary should

live with them. When I bid my step-mother good-bye I told her that I

had no confidence in the permanency of the arrangement she had made

with her sister, but in view of her faithfulness to my father during

his old age I wanted her to feel that she should have a home, and if

the arrangement she had made to live with her sister did not prove

satisfactory, not to hesitate about advising me of the fact, and I

would provide her a home on the farm where her youngest boy Charles R.,

was then living. As I anticipated, after a few years I received

information that mother and sister Mary both desired to come to Iowa

and avail themselves of my proffered help. They came accordingly and

the first year resided with my half-brother Charles. Mother then had

about twelve-hundred dollars of the small means left, and I proposed to

borrow this money and build her a house which she should have rent

free, and I would pay her interest on the twelve-hundred dollars which

would enable her to live comfortably on the farm. I accordingly built

the cottage for herself and her daughter Mary, which they continued to

occupy for several years. In the meantime sister Mary taught a Sunday

School class in the neighborhood, and among her scholars was one Chris

Mathes. This rude uneducated boy, seventeen years younger than herself,

pretended to fall in love with her and on the first of January, 1889,

she became his wife. In March, 1896, my step-mother died, leaving what

little means she had to her daughter Mary, and what was left of the

money she had advanced to me for building the house she had occupied on

the farm, which I afterwards paid over to Mary in full.

CHAPTER XVII

BREEDER OF SHORT HORN CATTLE

My half-brother, Charles R., continued on the farm in my employment and

in the care of my short-horn cattle business until the year 1889, when

I sold out my entire herd. During the ten years I was in the business I

enjoyed the recreation and attention to my stock, finding it a great

relief from my nervous tension and anxiety incident to an extensive

practice of the law. Soon after I commenced the business I attended a

meeting of the short-horn breeders of the state at West Liberty, Iowa,

at which time there was organized a Short-Horn Breeders' Association of

the state of Iowa, and I was elected president of the association and

continued in that office for seven years and until I retired from the

business. In the meantime we had also organized a national association

at Chicago for the purpose of purchasing the short-horn herd books

published in New York, Ohio, and Kentucky, and establishing the

_American Short-Horn Herd Book_, which became the only authentic

publication of pedigrees of short-horn cattle in the United States. I

was made a member of this board of control and continued in that

relation for a number of years, until I declined a further election

because of my retirement from the business. Our board of directors

represented some eleven different states of the Union with one director

from Canada. Our annual meetings were held at the time of the annual

Fat Stock Show in Chicago, and the gentlemen with whom I was associated

in that capacity were among the most pleasant acquaintances I ever made

during my lifetime. I found them intelligent, broad-minded men,

entirely unselfish and devoted to the interests of the Association.

During my connection with the board we paid off the entire indebtedness

incurred in the purchase of the _Short-Horn Herd Book_ as theretofore

published by Mr. Allen of New York, and also the indebtedness incurred

in the purchase of the _Kentucky Herd Book_ and the _Ohio Herd Book_.

Our state association also met once a year in connection with the

Improved Stock Breeders' Association of the state. We generally wound

up these sessions of our meetings with a banquet given us by the

citizens of the place where we held our meetings. At these banquets we

had a number of toasts and speeches, rather of the humorous than of the

instructive kind. I give herewith a specimen that I find printed with

the proceedings of the association held at Ottumwa on the 4th day of

December, 1885.

The Short-horn and Improved Stock Breeders' associations of Iowa

were intended in a great measure by their founders as missionary

societies. It was contemplated that they would hold their

conventions in the smaller towns and more sparsely settled portions

of the state, where their discussions upon breeds and breeding

would educate the farmers around in these great and important

industries.

A feast like this in one of the thriving and finest cities of the

state is hardly consistent with this benevolent and

self-sacrificing purpose, and I have reason to fear for the

consequences; we may fall from grace. At a recent session of the

New York Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal church, it is

said that the bishop had great difficulty in satisfying the

preachers about their appointments. One of the elders gravely

informed the bishop, that the preachers in his district had two

ambitions; one was to get to heaven, and the other was to be

stationed in the city of New York, and if they were to miss either,

he thought they would prefer to go to New York!

Now I know many of these self-sacrificing gentlemen I see around me

have in the past of their lives been trying to do good, looking for

their reward largely in the next world; but I fear in the future,

when we come to fix the place of our next annual meeting, they will

forget the spirit of self-sacrifice and the world to come, and say,

"Let us go to Ottumwa!" [Great laughter.]

I wish I could express to the citizens of Ottumwa the genuine

appreciation that I know these my brethren feel for them. It could

not be otherwise than that they should love you. You have

appreciated us and we must ever appreciate you. Your example also

may be valuable to us; others may hear of your good works and may

be thereby moved to be equally mindful of our necessities.

[Applause.]

My first knowledge of Ottumwa was in the year 1851. It was then a

straggling village of one street lined on either side with wooden

shanties. It would have been impossible for me to have imagined

then that in a few short years, whilst I am yet a young man

[laughter], there should be built here a substantial city of

fifteen thousand inhabitants. This goodly town is indeed a proud

monument to the thrift, enterprise, intelligence, and taste of its

inhabitants. Its commercial and manufacturing interests, and its

tasteful architecture you may justly be proud of.

Iowa is indeed a remarkable state and her people a peculiar people.

We have but few drones in the hive. Our population is made up of

simply the young and the strong and the enterprising of the other

states that have come hither to build up their personal fortunes,

and who have at the same time laid well and strong the foundations

of a great state. There is scarcely a college or university of any

of the older states that is not well represented in our men and

women. We have come together here and what one did not know he has

learned from his next door neighbor. All have contributed something

to the common fund of knowledge and enterprise. We have now built

our own schoolhouses and colleges, and today we have a less per

cent of illiteracy than any other state in the Union. But there is

one burden on my heart and one thought I desire to express: What is

the future to be? Are we giving to the state the children that may

worthily fill our places and take up and carry forward the work

that we have begun? The highest duty that we owe to the state is to

furnish to it in our children that perfect type of manhood that

will constitute its true glory. What signifies this accumulation of

wealth, these fine buildings, this beautiful architecture, if our

sons are to be profligates and the accursed saloon is to destroy

all the fruit of our toil. The time has come when as citizens and

as fathers we must seriously address ourselves to this problem of

our civilization.

I came to Iowa more than thirty years ago. I formed many warm

attachments among the young men, then just beginning life. I

remember the pride and hope that these young men and their then

young wives had in their children. As I visit the older towns where

these men have lived and won honorable distinction I have inquired

for their children. Alas! Too often it is a sad story and a painful

remembrance, and I have asked myself the question, is this always

to be so? And is there no help?

But enough of this; I forget I was not appointed to preach a

sermon, but to respond to a toast, and to express the appreciation

of these stockbreeders for your kindness. You have done well. The

scriptures exhort "that we should not be forgetful to entertain

strangers for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." Now I

am willing to admit that it would be a violent imagination that

would mistake one of these lusty stockbreeders for an angel. It

will probably be some time before even the pin-feathers will sprout

from their shoulder blades. But they are susceptible and under

proper influences and conditions I don't know what may happen. I

remember in the early days of Des Moines, when we were dependent

upon ourselves entirely for amusements, the ladies got up a public

entertainment consisting chiefly of tableaux. I had the honor of

officiating as stage manager. One representation was of a good and

an evil spirit, representing an angel and a devil. The ladies were

quite tardy in getting ready. I went into the green room to hurry

matters and found the ladies dressing [great applause and continued

interruption]. Do not interrupt in the middle of a sentence. I was

saying I found the ladies dressing the angel--a young lady to whom

they were attaching a pair of wings. I chided their delay and

unfortunately remarked, "that it took a long time to make an angel

out of a woman." The man who was to represent the evil spirit was

sitting by, all ready, with blackened face and horns, and one of

the ladies, pointing to him instantly remarked, "that it took but

little time to make a devil out of a man." Of course it is only a

question of time with all of this crowd. We all expect to be angels

but it will take time and good feeding.

I believe I have fully exhausted the subject assigned to me, to say

nothing of the audience. It is sad to have to make a speech when

you don't know beforehand what you are going to say and nobody

knows after you are done what you have said. Brethren we have cast

our bread upon the waters--and it has returned to us after many

days, literally and substantially.

I cannot conclude without thanking you for your quiet and

uninterrupted attention.

During my visit to Emporia, Kansas, with my niece, Rose Vimont, I found

a volume written by Alexander H. Stephens, evidently for the purpose of

justifying the attempt that had been made to destroy the government of

the United States by the disintegration of the government and the

establishment of the doctrine of the right of secession. That fall I

was invited by the president of the faculty of Simpson Centenary

College at Indianola, Iowa, to deliver an address at the college

commencement. I accordingly prepared with considerable care a lecture

upon the constitutional relations of the national and state

governments, in which I endeavored to combat the heresies contained in

Stephens's book, and the great truth that the national government was

not a compact between sovereign states, but was what it purported to

be--a government emanating from the source of all power: to-wit, the

people. The trustees and faculty of the college, after this lecture,

honored me by conferring upon me the degree of Doctor of Laws. This

lecture I afterwards delivered, upon the invitation of the president

and faculty of Drake University, before the students of that

institution, and also before the law class of the State University at

Iowa City.

About this time I also prepared and delivered on several occasions a

lecture upon the legal rights of married women, containing some sarcasm

and criticism upon the advanced legislation by which under our laws a

wife could bring suit in the courts and obtain judgment upon a

promissory note executed by her husband and payable to herself, citing

an instance in which this doctrine had actually been put in practice,

and remarking upon the right of the wife to issue execution against her

husband and cause a levy to be made upon his personal property for the

payment of the judgment, stating, however, that the law in its humanity

and pity for the husband had fortunately exempted the husband's wearing

apparel, including his pantaloons, from execution. This lecture I also

delivered, at the request of several local institutions in several

parts of the state.

CHAPTER XVIII

B. F. ALLEN'S BANKRUPTCY

On the 2nd day of January, 1875, the citizens of Des Moines were

startled by the news that the Cook County Bank of Chicago, Illinois, of

which bank B. F. Allen was president, had closed its doors. A meeting

of the citizens was called and held for consultation to ascertain what

effect this would have on the local affairs of our city. Impressions

seemed to prevail at first that the failure of the Cook County Bank did

not necessarily involve the failure of B. F. Allen or of his private

bank in the city of Des Moines, or of the National Bank of this city,

of which he was president. The great question before the meeting was to

ascertain "where we were at." A committee was appointed for that

purpose. I had the temerity to suggest that this committee could easily

ascertain what we all desired to know by examining the bills receivable

in Mr. Allen's bank. I was decidedly of the opinion that the Cook

County Bank had never failed and closed its doors while Mr. Allen

controlled the means to avoid such a result. Some months before this

time, on my return home from business out of the state, my partner, Mr.

Kauffman, informed me that he had purchased a certificate of deposit on

B. F. Allen's bank at a liberal discount from one J. C. Taylor. The

certificate of deposit was of recent date, payable twelve months after

date. It occurred to me a very strange performance that Mr. Taylor

should deposit fifteen hundred dollars in the bank and take a

certificate payable twelve months after date, and then go into the

market and sell such a certificate at a liberal discount. As I then

suspected, and afterwards ascertained the fact to be, Taylor had not

deposited fifteen hundred dollars in the bank, but had furnished the

bank his promissory note payable to the Cook County Bank and had

received in exchange for it a certificate of deposit payable twelve

months after date, and this note of Taylor's had been endorsed by Allen

as president of the Cook County Bank, and had been sent to New York as

an asset upon which to raise money. Fortunately this little transaction

coming to my knowledge induced me to remove my business from B. F.

Allen's bank and I lost nothing by his failure.

A short time after this; to-wit, about the 26th of January, 1875, a

gentleman from New York, to-wit, A. N. Denman, formerly a clerk in the

office of Allen, Stephens & Co., came into my office and put in my

hands for suit and foreclosure the following remarkable document:

NEW YORK, 18 NOV., 1874.

I hereby acknowledge the receipt of $465,000 of advances to the

Cook County National Bank of Chicago for my account, same being

made by Allen, Stephens & Co. in money, paper, and endorsements. I

have arranged with them for additional advances. In consideration

thereof I hereby grant and convey to Allen, Stephens & Co. by way

of mortgage and as security for such advances, all my real estate

of every kind and description, and wherever situated.

B. F. ALLEN.

This mortgage was not filed for record with the recorder of deeds of

Polk county until the 19th of January, 1875. On the 30th of November,

1874, it had been placed in a sealed package and intrusted to Mr.

Denman in the city of New York with sealed instructions and directions

for him to proceed with the package to Chicago and there await further

instructions. He was not even informed of the contents of the package

and was instructed not to open it until he received advices from New

York as to further proceedings.

When the people of Des Moines began to realize that B. F. Allen had

really become a bankrupt they were ready to believe almost any theory

that would exonerate him from the censure that he deserved in risking

the money of his depositors in wild and foolish speculation. One theory

promulgated and believed was that he had been deceived in the value of

the assets of the Cook County Bank when he purchased the same. On the

contrary the evidence taken in the suit to which I have alluded shows

that he did not pay a dollar of his own money for the stock of the Cook

County Bank. Several years before his failure and before his purchase

of the Cook County Bank, or a controlling interest in it, he had been

appointed by the United States Circuit Court of Des Moines receiver in

a litigation that had been commenced against the Chicago, Rock Island &

Pacific Railroad Company. As such receiver he had come into possession

of about $800,000 of bonds issued by the Rock Island Company. These

bonds he had hypothecated in New York City for money with which he

carried on his speculations, and as the time approached for him to make

settlement of his receivership he found it necessary to do something in

order to save the sureties on his bond. He accordingly went to Chicago

and in May, 1873, he purchased the controlling interest in the Cook

County Bank, giving a draft for the larger part of it on Allen,

Stephens & Co., and his note for the balance, all of which was

ultimately paid out of the money of the depositors of the Cook County

Bank. The funds that he came in control of by this means enabled him to

settle his receivership. Mr. Allen, in his testimony in the case

referred to gives the following account of his losses by speculation:

As a member of the firm of B. F. Murphy & Co., Chicago $200,000

H. M. Bush & Co., Grain Speculation 75,000

Lewis & Stephens, speculators (grain) 30,000

Swamp Land speculation 18,000

San Pete Coal Co. of Utah 18,000

Denver Coal Lands 5,000

Kentucky Lands 25,000

South Evanston property 40,000

Building on So. Evanston property 40,000

Sheffield near South Chicago 32,000

Grand Pacific Hotel stock 10,000

Prairie Avenue Residence 31,000

Chicago Railway Construction Co. 10,000

Canada Southern Railway Co. 60,000

Toledo, Wabash & Western R.R. Co. 35,000

Speculation Stock Exchange 150,000

These losses only foot up $779,000, whereas in truth and in fact the

depositor's accounts in his private bank in Des Moines alone amounted

to $800,000 at the time of his failure, and his indebtedness to the

Charter Oak Life Insurance Company for money procured by Blennerhassett

from that institution amounted to over one-half million dollars, and a

draft of the Iowa State National Bank $100,000 not credited to that

bank until after the failure. In May 1874, one Warren Hussey, of Utah,

visited Blennerhassett & Stephens in New York City and induced them to

procure a pretended loan of $400,000 from the Charter Oak Life

Insurance Company, then represented by its vice-president, a man by the

name of White. The money was advanced as a pretended loan to one

Matthew Gisborn without any security whatever save the personal

security of Gisborn & Hussey, with a private understanding that Mr.

White and Messrs. Blennerhassett & Stephens should have the benefit of

anticipated dividends on the stock of the mine, a large share of which

was in the hands of Warren Hussey for his commission as procurer; in

other words, it was a speculation on the part of Allen, Stephens & Co.

and White, the vice-president of the Charter Oak Life Insurance

Company, being one of the causes of the failure thereafter of the

Charter Oak Life Insurance Company, as the stock proved to be entirely

worthless and the security of Gisborn & Hussey was of no value

whatever. On April 22, 1875, B. F. Allen was adjudged a bankrupt on the

petition of his creditors filed on the 23rd of February, 1875, and Hoyt

Sherman, of Des Moines, was appointed assignee in bankruptcy. Mr. Jeff

S. Polk and Mr. Bisbee, an attorney of Chicago, were employed by the

assignee in bankruptcy to defeat the suit for the foreclosure of the

mortgage. The main ground of defense to this mortgage was that at the

time of its execution there was an agreement between Allen and Stephens

& Blennerhassett that it should be withheld from record, and that

between the time of its execution and the time that it was recorded

Stephens & Blennerhassett represented that Allen was solvent and

possessed of large properties in real estate, and they caused him to be

rated by the commercial bureaus of the country as worth one million

dollars, and at the same time knew that he was in fact insolvent, and

this defense was held to be abundantly proved by the testimony taken in

the case, and the supreme court of the United States decided that as

against the creditors and the assignee in bankruptcy the mortgage was

absolutely void. After the original petition was filed for the

foreclosure of the mortgage I filed a supplemental bill making the

Charter Oak Life Insurance Company the plaintiff and Hoyt Sherman, the

assignee in bankruptcy, the respondent. After several months had

elapsed from the time the suit was begun I concluded to make a personal

visit to Blennerhassett & Stephens, of New York City, and try to

understand the real situation and facts in the case. I spent some two

weeks interviewing the two men who constituted the firm, but for some

reason not known to me I never could obtain from them any very accurate

account or reliable statement of the facts necessary to be understood

to make the proper presentation of the case. Mr. Blennerhassett

especially appeared to be a very peculiar man and his desire for

concealment amounted to a controlling passion. The books of the firm of

Allen, Stephens & Co. had locks upon their lids and Blennerhassett

carried the key. No attempt was made to inform me of the detail of the

transaction between them and the Cook County Bank, and I never became

fully advised as to these matters except as they were developed by the

testimony afterwards taken. The evidence showed that the correspondence

between the house in New York and Mr. Allen was carried on by means of

a cipher or fictitious word. Allen was represented as "head,"

Blennerhassett as "arm," and Stephens as "leg" of some imaginary

person. The transmission of the mortgage itself to Chicago in a sealed

package with sealed instructions, and the manner in which the business

was transacted were well calculated to excite suspicion, or in other

words give the impression that there was something that it was

necessary to conceal. That Allen was insolvent and had been for several

years prior to his actual failure the testimony left no doubt, and the

manner in which he conducted his business in connection with the house

in New York was overwhelming proof that the parties knew that he could

not promptly meet his pecuniary obligations. The real interested party

in the transaction was the Charter Oak Life Insurance Company. Mr.

White, the vice-president, proved to be under the influence of

Blennerhassett and obtained the money of the company in matters of loan

and discount to an extent that was wholly unjustifiable.

My visit to New York, however, was a very profitable one to myself. The

Charter Oak Life Insurance Company and several of the banks to whom

Allen's mortgages and bills receivable had been negotiated from time to

time, including $100,000 of bonds of the Des Moines Gas Company, placed

in my hands their collections, and I think that the securities that I

brought home with me amounted to one half million dollars, and in the

suit and foreclosure of these collaterals the firm of Nourse & Kauffman

made very handsome profits. The litigation lasted a number of years and

a final result was not obtained until the decision of the supreme court

of the United States at the April term, 1882. The opinion is reported

in United States Supreme Court Reports, Volume 105, page 100. After

this decision was made we filed a claim of the Charter Oak Life

Insurance Company against the bankrupt estate as a general creditor. In

the meantime the Charter Oak Life Insurance Company itself had gone

into bankruptcy. We had some doubt as to whether our claim would be

allowed as we had insisted on a preference that the court had decided

was fraudulent. Mr. J. S. Polk and Mr. Bisbee, of Chicago, finally

bought the claim of the Charter Oak Life Insurance Company against the

bankrupt estate, and had no difficulty in having it allowed by Mr.

Sherman, the assignee. These men also bought large and valuable

portions of the real estate from Mr. Sherman, the assignee, and

received a conveyance accordingly. The estate paid to the general

creditors only, as we were advised, about fifteen cents on the dollar.

Another interesting feature of the transaction was that Mr. Allen

claimed the benefit of the homestead law of Iowa and claimed the fine

residence on Terrace Hill with forty acres of land as exempt from his

debts. The homestead law of Iowa, however, only exempted a homestead in

favor of a resident of the state. Mr. Allen had been for a number of

years a resident of Chicago, had purchased a home there, and had paid

out $31,000 on the purchase. We also proved that he had voted as a

citizen of Chicago, I think at the city, county, and state elections,

and that he had offered the property on Terrace Hill for sale and had

caused a number of articles to be published in the city papers claiming

the property to be worth $100,000. A compromise, however, was made by

the assignee in bankruptcy by which Mr. Allen was allowed the buildings

and a limited amount of ground, and Mr. F. M. Hubbell purchased the

same for $40,000. This $40,000 did him no good, for within a year or

two he lost it in another grain speculation on the board of trade in

Chicago. In the meantime his wife, who was a daughter of Captain F. R.

West, had become insane and imagined that her husband's creditors were

pursuing her because of their losses, and she died within a few months

after losing her reason. Mr. Allen a few years afterwards removed to

California, where he still lives at the time of the present writing,

holding some employment from the United States government in connection

with the business of preserving the timber on the public lands in that

state.

[Illustration: _Charles Clinton Nourse_

From Photograph by I. W. Kramer, Des Moines]

CHAPTER XIX

ABOUT PROHIBITION

In the month of November, 1889, the democratic party of the state of

Iowa, for the first time since the election of Governor Grimes in 1854,

succeeded in electing their candidate for governor; to-wit, Horace

Boies. This was brought about by a singular combination between the

railroad and the saloon interests of the state. I have already given

some account of the effect upon the question of prohibition of the

foolish policy pursued by the pretended friends of temperance in

securing from the supreme court of the state a decision against the

right to manufacture alcohol within the limits of the state for the

purpose of export, and also the foolishness and wickedness of certain

pretended friends of prohibition in instituting fraudulent prosecutions

with a view to making costs and fees for their own personal profit.

During the administration of Governor Larrabee the railroads of the

state had become very restive under the control exercised by the

Railroad Commissioners of the state under the law of 1888. In the month

of August, 1888, some thirty suits were commenced in the district court

of Polk county against the Rock Island, Northwestern, and "Q" railroads

for penalties incurred in failure to make their reports to the

Commissioners as required by the statute. The railroads of Iowa had

become a very potent political power. We had five railroads extending

from the Mississippi to the Missouri river, and in every county of the

state in which these roads were located the railroads had one or more

active attorneys to look after their interests, and under such

captaincy as Blythe, of Burlington, and Hubbard, of Cedar Rapids, they

exercised a very important influence over the politics of the state,

controlling to a large extent the nomination of supreme judges and

district judges and other state officers. The people of the state had

become restive under the domination of this power. The open and

shameless peddling of railroad passes to the members of the general

assembly had begun to lose its power as against the rising indignation

of the people. In the counties of Lee, Des Moines, Muscatine, Scott,

and Dubuque on the Mississippi river, and such interior counties as

Johnson and Crawford, with their foreign population, the saloon power

of the state, uniting with the railroads, was sufficient to cause a

successful revolt against the party in power. Horace Boies, the

democratic candidate for governor, openly and shamelessly declared the

prohibitory law to be cruel and unjust in its provisions, and his

utterances in this behalf encouraged the violators of the law to

believe what they afterwards realized, that though the courts might

assess penalties, yet an executive who believed the penalty to be

unjust could easily be persuaded to exercise pardoning power in their

remission, and such was the result. For four years during the

administration of Horace Boies the effort to enforce the prohibitory

law was almost paralyzed. After incurring all the expense and trouble

incident to the conviction of any one violating the prohibitory law,

the people had the mortification of seeing the judgments of the courts

rendered nugatory by the wrongful exercise of the pardoning power,

vested by the constitution in the governor for wise and proper

purposes, prostituted by an unscrupulous politician for his own

political advancement and that of his party.

Another cause of this successful revolution in the politics of the

state arose from the absolute cowardice of the leading republicans of

the state in not defending the legislation for which they were

responsible. During the candidacy of Boies for his second term, a

gentleman who was a candidate on the state ticket for a state office

applied to me and asked my consent to publicly discuss the question of

prohibition with Mr. Boies in case the state central committee of the

party would arrange for such discussion. I gave my consent to such an

arrangement, provided the committee would agree to the same, but he

afterwards reported to me that the committee did not think it

advisable. On the part of the public speakers in behalf of the

republican cause the only discussion of the question of prohibition was

an apology for the enactment of the law. They did not attempt to

discuss the question of right or wrong, but only that the law was

enacted because the people by their vote upon the constitutional

amendment had signified their approval of prohibition. The result of

this cowardice and the four years' domination of the democratic party

had its result in the platform adopted by the republican state

convention in the year 1893. Only the year before this the republican

state convention had adopted a resolution promising the people of the

state that the party would take no backward step on the subject of

prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, and at this

convention in 1893 they adopted the following resolution:

Resolved, That prohibition is not a test of republicanism. The

general assembly has given to the state a prohibitory law as

strong as any that has been enacted in any country. Like any other

criminal statute, its retention, mitigation or repeal must be

determined by the general assembly, elected by and in sympathy

with the people and to it is relegated the subject, to take such

action as they may deem best in the matter, maintaining the

present law in those portions of the state where it is now or can

be made efficient, and giving to other localities such methods of

controlling and regulating the liquor traffic as will best serve

the cause of temperance and morality.

Under this platform, which merely meant the return of the open licensed

saloon to Iowa in such localities in which the people would tolerate

them, Mr. A. B. Cummins and his followers were all received back with

open arms as prodigal sons and became at once important leaders

politically in the republican party. The friends of prohibition were

shocked and alarmed at this result and at once the prominent and more

courageous prohibitionists of the state joined in a call for an

independent republican convention favorable to prohibition. At the

solicitation of a number of prohibitionists in the city of Des Moines I

prepared the following address and call for a state convention, which

address was adopted by a public meeting, held in the city of Des Moines:

When, through the machinations of men who, in their desire for

success, have lost sight of principle, causes dear to humanity are

about to be sacrificed, it becomes the duty of patriotic citizens

to make an organized effort to rescue their imperiled rights.

As republicans we assert our unqualified devotion to the doctrines

and principles of the republican party as heretofore set forth in

our national platform, and as declared by republican state

conventions and put in practical effect in the state of Iowa by

republican legislators prior to the meeting of the republican state

convention, held at Des Moines on the sixteenth inst. We declare

that through the patriotic efforts of the republican party of Iowa

prohibition had become the settled policy of the state, and that

any attempt on the part of the politicians to induce the party to

take a backward step on that question is to repudiate a past

honorable record and to uselessly endanger future success by a base

imitation of a hitherto despised opposition.

More than forty years ago the people of Iowa without distinction of

party declared through the enactment of their general assembly,

that the "people of this state would hereafter take no part in the

profits of the retail of intoxicating liquors." This principle was

again approved by the people of the state in the adoption of the

act of 1855, approved by Governor Grimes, and more recently the

people again endorsed the principle by adopting a constitutional

amendment prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors for the

purpose of a beverage. The people of the state of Iowa have never

indicated any desire for a change of policy on this question, but

on the contrary through the action of their representatives

expressly elected upon this issue, they have constantly and

consistently adhered to our present law.

The declarations of the recent republican convention have not been

brought about by any change of sentiment on the part of the

republicans of the state, but in our judgment its action is the

result of a combination of politicians who had other and ulterior

purposes at heart, and have failed to realize that whatever may

have been their own want of convictions upon the question, the

great mass of people have been honest and sincere. The honest

voters of the republican party are not "clay in the hands of the

potter," to be molded into any fashion that may suit the

professional politician. The battle that for the past quarter of a

century they have been waging against the liquor power and

influence, and in which they have gained so many signal triumphs,

has not been prompted by a mere desire for office or place, nor

have our forces been kept together by the mere "cohesive power of

the hope of public plunder." Hence if the defeat of 1891 could in

any measure have been attributed to the position of the party on

the question of prohibition, it would not constitute a valid reason

for a shameful surrender and retreat. When the republican party

declared for the maintenance of the prohibitory law, and promised

that the party would take no backward step on this question, the

earnest and honest men of the party did not mean that the party

would only pursue that policy so long as it would win, but they

meant that prohibition was right and that they would maintain the

right, and that they intended to fight it out on that line, not

only that summer, but until the saloon should make an unconditional

surrender.

We have reasons to believe and do believe that the platform of the

convention of the sixteenth inst., on the subject of temperance,

was brought about by the same combination of railroad and saloon

influence that defeated our party in the election of 1891, aided by

the timid and half-hearted defense of our platform through the

weakness of our state central committee.

The implied threat of the same combination to repeat their

opposition in the approaching election, induced the republican

state central committee to unite in accomplishing this surrender.

It is said and often repeated that there is no hope for the cause

of prohibition except through the success of the republican party.

This was undoubtedly true so long as the state platform pledged the

party to maintain and enforce the law.

The platform adopted on the sixteenth inst. not only does not

promise to maintain prohibition as a state policy, but expressly

declares in favor of "something else" in those localities where the

prohibitory law was not enforced. This "something else" in the

pretended "interest of true temperance" can deceive no man who does

not desire to be deceived. It is a base imitation of democratic

state platforms, and intends merely the "Schmidt bill" or the

"Gatch bill" or some other equally objectionable attempt to abandon

prohibition as a principle and as a state policy.

We believe in the sovereignty of the state of Iowa, and in its

undivided sovereignty over every foot of territory within its

boundaries. We do not believe the general assembly should attempt

to exercise the power to make an act criminal in one part of the

state and license the same act in another part of the state. The

constitution of our state requires that all laws enacted by the

general assembly "shall have a uniform operation." If the state

shall concede that the sale of intoxicating liquors may be licensed

in one part of the state and saloons may be lawfully established in

one city or county, with what consistency can the state punish such

acts as criminal when done in another locality within her

jurisdiction. The establishment of a saloon for the propagation of

drunkenness is either innocent or a criminal act. We recognize no

middle ground. We do not believe in compromising with criminals or

commuting offenses committed against the best interests of

humanity. Neither do we believe the republican party of Iowa can

ever survive an act so inconsistent with principle and her former

professions, as would be the repeal of our present prohibitory law

or the enactment of a license system for any part of the state.

We do not propose or recommend opposition to the election of any

candidate for the general assembly on the republican ticket who is

in favor of maintaining and enforcing our present law. The election

of such is consistent with our past history and policy and will

secure a republican United States senator. If, however, any

candidate for the general assembly on the republican ticket shall

declare for a saloon as against what has heretofore been recognized

as republicanism, the responsibility of his defeat, with all its

political consequences, will be upon him, and not upon those who

are true to their convictions and principles and the past policy of

the party.

We, therefore, the republicans of Polk county in mass convention

assembled, at the instance and with the coöperation of the

republicans of Sac and other counties of the state, who protest and

dissent from the action of the state convention of the sixteenth

inst., with the view of an organized effort that may save our party

from committing the great wrong and outrage attempted, do hereby

invite all citizens who agree with us in sentiment and purpose to

meet in delegate convention in Calvary Tabernacle at Des Moines,

Iowa, on Tuesday the fifth day of September, A.D. 1893, at 10 A.M.,

to take such steps and devise such measures as

_First._ Will secure the election to the general assembly at the

November election of such candidates only as will maintain the

present prohibitory law.

_Second._ As will secure such action and such an expression of

the will and wishes of the people of the state as will convince the

republican managers that the path of honor is the only path of

safety.

The call for this convention alarmed the leaders of the republican

party in the state, and they were very active in their efforts to

counteract its effect. The convention was held according to the call on

the 5th of September, 1893, and we had a very large representation and

a very enthusiastic convention. We adopted a platform embracing the

principles indicated in the call for the convention and nominated a

state ticket. Our candidate for Governor, Mr. L. S. Coffin, was not

present in the convention, but Doctor Fellows, a prominent

prohibitionist of the state, vouched for his entire sympathy with the

movement and his acceptance of the nomination. Mrs. J. Ellen Foster,

who had been president of the national W.C.T.U., was sent by

politicians from Washington, D.C., and was present at the convention,

for the purpose, if possible, of alienating such as she could influence

from taking part in or endorsing the movement. She seated herself in

the gallery over against the chair occupied by the president and

scowled and looked vengeance at those who took an active part in its

proceedings. When I read the call for the convention before set out she

looked for all the world like Tam O'Shanter's wife when waiting for

Tam's return, "Knitting her brows like a gathering storm and nursing

her wrath to keep it warm." During the recess of the convention she was

very busy button-holing first one and then another of the prominent

prohibitionists in attendance, taking them to a private parlor in the

hotel and laboring with them to convince them that the success of the

republican party was more important than the question of prohibition.

After our nomination of Coffin as our candidate for Governor, Mr. Lafe

Young, editor of the _Capital_, made a visit to Mr. Coffin at his

home at Fort Dodge. Mr. Coffin had prepared his letter of acceptance of

our nomination, but Young induced him to cut it in two and change the

latter half of it so that it would read a declination of the

nomination, and by some means unknown to the public induced Mr. Coffin

to take the stump and make a number of speeches on the tariff question

during the political canvass that year. By some means unknown also to

me, the leading railroad lawyers of the state who had supported Boies

were induced to return to their allegiance to the republican party, and

the party succeeded in electing Jackson their candidate for governor,

and also electing a legislature in sympathy with their saloon platform.

The general assembly that met in January, 1894, accordingly passed the

act known as the mulct law, being chapter 62 of the laws of the 25th

general assembly of the state. This act does not in terms attempt to

repeal the prohibitory law then in force in the state. On the contrary,

section 16 of the act expressly provides: "Nothing in this act

contained, shall be in any way construed to mean that the business of

the sale of intoxicating liquors is in any way legalized, nor is the

same to be construed in any manner or form as a license, nor shall the

assessment or payment of any tax for the sale of liquors as aforesaid,

protect the wrongdoer from any penalty now provided by law, except that

on conditions hereinafter provided certain penalties may be suspended."

The next section of the act provides for the circulation of a petition,

and by obtaining a certain majority or percentage of the voters to sign

a petition to that effect the penalties provided in the prohibitory

liquor law shall not be enforced against the offender. Under this law

the brewers of St. Louis and Milwaukee employed men to circulate

petitions, paying them five dollars a day for their services in

obtaining signatures to petitions in certain counties of the state,

under which the parties who paid the required tax were secured against

any prosecutions for violations of the law. I tried several cases in

the district and supreme court of the state for the purpose of testing

the constitutionality of this act of the legislature. It placed the

pardoning power theretofore exercised by the Governor of the state in

the hands of the brewers of Milwaukee and St. Louis and their

employees, provided they could by such means as they might adopt,

obtain the required number of signatures to such petitions. It clearly

recognized that what was a crime under the law in one part of the

state, might be committed provided the necessary amount was furnished

and paid into the public treasury as a commutation for the offense, and

that payment should be made in advance without reference to the number

of offenses that might be committed. It was clearly not a law of

uniform operations under the decisions of our supreme court as

theretofore held, for it was a crime in one city or county in the state

and not a crime in another city or county of the state; notwithstanding

the law making it a crime was still left in full force and effect,

except as it was abrogated in a particular locality by the signing of

certain petitions. Strange to say the supreme court of Iowa,

notwithstanding their former decisions to which I have heretofore

referred, sustained this law and its constitutionality, and under it in

all of the counties of the state where we had any considerable foreign

population the legalized saloon has returned to do its deadly work and

the only compensation for it is that men who call themselves

republicans have been able to hold and enjoy the honors of public

office. After the decision of our supreme court upon the question of

the constitutionality of this act I received from the editors of a law

publication east a communication requesting my views and opinions for

publication in their law magazine, and I simply wrote upon the letter

addressed to me the statement that the decision made by our supreme

court under this law was a political necessity and that it was an old

and true adage that necessity knew no law, and I had no further

comments to make upon it.

Since the prominent part that I took in this canvass of 1893 my

standing with the republican party has been rather impaired;

nevertheless, subsequently in the campaigns of Mr. Wm. Jennings Bryan

involving the national policy of the republican party, I have taken

very active part. The free coinage of silver heresy of Mr. Bryan I

regarded as a serious menace to the integrity and honor of the nation,

and I spent very considerable time and my own private means in making

public speeches condemning that wild and visionary scheme. In state

politics I have taken no active part since 1894. I never belonged to or

coöperated with what has been known as the "Third party" or the

prohibition party as a national organization. When the prohibitionists

of Iowa united with the national organization I strongly advised

against it. I could not see any hope of accomplishing anything by such

an organization. The states of Kansas, Iowa, and the Dakotas had become

prohibition, and in my judgment the only effectual way of reaching the

question of prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage,

or the establishment of places of resort for such sale, was by the

exercise of the police power of the states in the management of their

own domestic affairs. The congress of the United States had no control

over the subject, except in the matter of revenue laws or the taxing of

the manufacture or sale of liquors. Our courts and the supreme court of

the United States had agreed that the payment of taxes under these

revenue laws and the issuing of what has been called a license, was

really no protection as against the state law and its penalties. The

general government does not exercise police power within the state but

it may enforce penalties for the violation of revenue laws or enact

laws regulating commerce within the states, but it cannot prohibit the

establishment of the saloon or the maintenance of such a place merely

upon the ground of preserving public order and morality. I could not

and never have been able, therefore, to see the propriety of a national

organization based upon the idea of prohibiting the sale of

intoxicating liquors as a beverage, or establishing places of resort

for such sale.

Another objection to this third party, the national prohibition party,

so-called, has been the adoption of a platform favoring universal

suffrage without reference to sex. This also is a question over which

the congress of the United States have not heretofore exercised any

jurisdiction. The question of suffrage or the right to vote has been a

matter peculiarly within the control of each state of the Union and its

local constitution and laws, and is not and never has been a matter of

national politics. I have always believed and still believe that if the

prohibitionists had confined their efforts to the several states,

capturing those in which they had some prospect of success, their cause

would have grown and become stronger each year. The great centers of

population such as New York City, Chicago, Cincinnati, and St. Louis,

and such other cities filled as they are with foreign population, who

have no sympathy with the manners and customs pertaining to these

agricultural states, cannot in my judgment be brought under the control

of prohibition at any time during the present or next generation of

men, and I regard it as foolish to spend our time and our money in such

quixotic efforts. My hope in inaugurating the movement that we made in

1893 was simply to teach the republicans of Iowa the lesson that

success politically was not to be attained in this state by

subservience to the saloon power, and that defeat in the election of

that year might result in a return of the party to its better and

higher purposes in maintaining that which was right and just and

humane. That we were defeated in that effort at that time was most

unfortunate, but the domination of the political power of the saloon, I

still have faith to believe, will work its own destruction, and that

the people of this state will return to their former convictions.

CHAPTER XX

PERSONAL INCIDENTS

In the spring of the year 1888 I sold my home, 707 Fourth street, and

built a house for my residence on my farm. We left the old home with no

little regret. It had been our place of residence since the fall of

1859, with the exception of two years in which we fitted up the

property temporarily on the corner of Fifth and Center, while we built

the new house on Fourth in the old location. We had planted the shade

trees of hard and soft maple. Here our child had been born and had

grown to manhood, here we had celebrated our silver wedding in 1878,

and had enjoyed the society of many kind friends and persons of

distinction and influence in the state. Bishop Andrews, the bishop of

the Methodist Episcopal church, with his family, resided nearly

opposite to our house, and Bishop Hearst and his family had lived on

Third street nearby, and our excellent neighbors, A. Y. Rawson and his

first wife, Thos. F. Withrow and his family, had been our kind friends

through many years. Here we had entertained such men as Governor Grimes

and Governor Kirkwood and his wife, Senator Harlan and his wife, Bishop

Waldron, Bishop Simpson, and other distinguished men of the state and

of the church.

The most difficult problem in my life that I had to solve was the care

and education of my son. I felt that everything was at stake in his

proper discipline and education. During his early childhood we sent him

to school as already mentioned to Mrs. Winkley, afterwards for some

years to the public school and still later to Callanan College, an

institution taught by Dr. Pomeroy. When the time came for him to go

from home and attend college my first thought was to send him to Iowa

City to the State University, but I had grave fears in regard to the

influence that prevailed in that city. The college campus was environed

by saloons and public sentiment of that town was far from being what it

ought to have been. Attorneys had been mobbed in the streets of the

city for the offense of prosecuting the violators of the prohibitory

law, and there had been no proper expression of public sentiment

condemning the outrage. I consulted with a number of the best citizens

of Iowa City in regard to the matter of sending my son there for his

education, but I became satisfied that they knew but very little of

what was transpiring in the city after bedtime. I thought it prudent to

make an investigation on my own account. I accordingly took the train

that left Des Moines at five o'clock in the afternoon, arriving at Iowa

City about half past nine. I went to the St. James Hotel and quietly

registered my name and engaged a room for the night, but did not go to

bed. I waited until about half past ten or eleven o'clock, and took my

hat and started out on a tour of inspection. I visited a number of the

saloons on the public square and found them filled with young men, no

doubt students of the college, and I met several crowds of these young

gentlemen on the street headed by one of the trustees of the college in

not a very sober condition. I returned to my hotel with my mind fully

made up that my boy should go without an education before I would

subject him to the risk of being educated in such a town. Subsequently

I visited Ames in company with my wife and selected a proper room in

the dormitory for my son's occupancy, and we sent him to Ames

accordingly. He afterwards spent a year in California before settling

down to business as an architect in Des Moines.

[Illustration: _Rebecca A. McMeekin Nourse_ From Photograph by

Edinger]

He was anxious to design a country farm house that should be a credit

to his own skill and ability. Our new house was completed in the latter

part of July of that year. We found it somewhat inconvenient to be so

far away from our church privileges and from business, but took great

pleasure in improving our grounds and setting out fruit and ornamental

trees for our new home. I had the old road changed so as to run east of

the house. My wife soon became very much attached to the new home and

here we had many pleasant reunions with our old friends and neighbors.

In 1886 I rented the farm, including the land in section 20 bought of

Sneer, to Mr. Charles West for the term of three years, he carrying on

a dairy farm on the place, reserving from his lease the right to occupy

the orchard as well as my own residence, and also the right of pasture

for a team of horses and a couple of cows. The next year, 1889, my son

contracted marriage with Miss Elizabeth Baehring, and here were born my

two grandchildren, Clinton Baehring Nourse on April 14, 1890, and

Lawrence Baehring Nourse on October 5, 1893. My son and his wife and

first child made a trip to Europe in the year 1892. In 1895 my son

purchased a property on Fifth street and removed to the city and

occupied the same until the fall of the year, when the children were

both taken down with diphtheria. He put them both at once in a carriage

and brought them out to our country home, where the oldest of the two

children died September 10th. This was the first death we had in the

family, and I purchased a lot in Woodland Cemetery where the little one

was laid away.

The following year my health became somewhat impaired and I had a

serious attack of what they called la grippe. I was somewhat overworked

at that time, and under the advice of my physician I went with my wife

to the state of Florida and spent the winter in St. Petersburg in that

state, returning early in the spring and resuming my practice. For

several successive years since then I have spent my winters in St.

Petersburg, Florida.

In the year 1902 my son's health became seriously impaired, and early

that fall with his wife and child he visited California, and in

December of that year my wife and myself joined them. My son suffered

from severe nervous condition that made it impossible for him to sleep

only a few hours out of each twenty-four. He was reduced in flesh to

about 117 pounds weight and I became seriously concerned for his

future. Finding outdoor travel to agree with him better than treatment

of the doctors, we finally in the month of April, 1903, determined upon

a camping expedition and a visit to the Yosemite valley. We fitted out

two teams with camp wagons and tent, and started from Long Beach about

the 26th of April, traveling about twenty miles a day, going first via

the coast to Santa Barbara and thence via Merced over to the Yosemite

valley. At Santa Barbara my wife concluded she would not go any further

with us on the trip. Our roads over mountains were very narrow, the

outer wheel of the wagon only three or four feet from the precipice,

and she suffered nervous apprehension that deprived her of any real

enjoyment of the trip. I secured the services of a young man to

accompany us on the further trip and to aid in the work incident to

camp life. My son's wife had suffered from a spell of nervous

indigestion and was scarcely able to do the cooking for her husband and

child. I became the cook for myself and my assistant and acquired

considerable skill in making coffee and flapjacks and frying breakfast

bacon. The scenery upon this trip and in the valley of the Yosemite has

been described by many writers more skilled than myself in putting

their impressions upon paper. I can only say that we all enjoyed the

trip exceedingly and were strongly impressed with these wonderful

mountains and valleys and great trees that have acquired a world-wide

reputation. My wife and myself returned to Iowa and to our home early

in July, 1903.

During the second year of the tenancy of Mr. Chas. West I had the

misfortune of losing all of my barns and outbuildings by fire. The loss

amounted to about $3,500 and I only had $500 insurance on one of the

barns. I immediately rebuilt the barns and granary and corn cribs,

taking the precaution also to build a separate barn for my own use. A

few months after my return from California in that year I discovered

that one of my eyes had failed, supposed to be caused by a callous

condition of the optic nerve. Soon after the other eye became affected

in the same way, and later in the fall I was unable to read. I first

applied to and received treatment from Dr. Pearson; afterwards I

visited Chicago and took treatment of an oculist of some reputation

there. The following winter I took treatment from Dr. Amos of Des

Moines, and spent two weeks in the Methodist Hospital without receiving

any relief or seeming benefit. These physicians were all candid enough

to confess their inability to do me any good, and since that time I

have been partially deprived of the use of my sight, and have not been

able to read or write. My physicians promised me several years ago that

I should lose my sight entirely, but in this I am happy to say they

were wrong. I can still see imperfectly to get about and avoid

collision with objects, but I am not able to recognize the features of

friends and acquaintances.

I have continued every year to visit St. Petersburg during the winter

season, and have made many pleasant and interesting acquaintances among

the tourists who visit annually that place.

On the first day of November, 1906, my beautiful home was totally

destroyed by fire. We lost all our furniture and clothing, except my

private library and furnishings on the first floor of the house, which

we succeeded in rescuing from the flames. The previous winter my wife

had accompanied me to Florida and remained with me there during the

season. After our house was destroyed we removed to the city and

occupied apartments with my son and his wife in a block of flats then

belonging to my son on Fifth street. The following winter, 1906-07, I

spent in St. Petersburg, returning home in April of that year. I had

been home only a few days before we made the sad discovery that my

wife's health was fast failing. At her earnest solicitation, however,

we rebuilt our house on the farm and in August of that year

reëstablished ourselves in the location of our old home.

And now comes the saddest event of my life. On the 11th day of

November, succeeding, my wife passed away. The previous 21st of March

was her eightieth birthday. A short time before that date while at St.

Petersburg, Florida, I received from my daughter Elizabeth a letter

stating that she intended to have some friends spend an evening with my

wife to have a birthday celebration, and requesting me to write some

verses and also to send a new silk dress pattern to be presented to my

wife on the occasion. I had a premonition that the sad event that later

transpired in the fall was not far off. I wrote as cheerfully as I

could under the circumstances and sent my daughter a check with which

to purchase the silk dress pattern, and the following verses I composed

as well as I could with my defective sight. They were read on the

occasion, and those present assure me that my wife was cheerful and

enjoyed their visit very much:

My Dear Wife:--

Elizabeth, our daughter, writes to me

That she intends to have some friends to tea;

She says she can't invite them all,

Because our house is much too small,

But she selected just a few,

The ones she thinks are dearest most to you.

She intends to celebrate, for mother dear,

The birthday of her eightieth year,

And she requests that I shall write to thee,

What she is pleased to call some poetry,

And that because I can't be there

She'll read it from my vacant chair.

She also writes, that while your health is good,

That very lately she has understood

That you are suffering some distress,

And I must buy for you a new silk dress,

And send it there together with the poetry,

That she could have them both in time for tea.

The journey has been very long my dear,

And you have safely reached your eightieth year,

But you will never seem so old to me,

I still recall your face just as it used to be.

Your brow is smooth, your eyes are bright,

You still retain your appetite.

This human life doth now as ever

Depend so much upon the liver.

Some sixty years ago, I knew

A fair young girl, she looked like you.

We fell in love, a youthful dream,

But even now, this world would seem

A barren waste, if I could doubt

The love I could not live without.

'Tis more than fifty years since we were wed,

How rapidly the time has fled.

The way has not been always smooth,

I only cite the fact to prove

Our love was true. That is to say

We found some shadows o'er our way.

But they were shadows only, and did not bother,

For reaching out our hands to touch each other

We kept the path until the light

Shone out again and all was right.

We've had our joy, our grief and sorrow,

Differed today, agreed tomorrow,

Forgave each other and repented,

Firm one day, the next relented,

But after all the truth to tell

I think we've averaged very well.

'Tis almost four and fifty years

Since you, with many sighs and tears,

Bade farewell to home and friends,

Not knowing what your life might be,

With only faith in God and love for me.

I'm thinking of the time gone by,

When from your home, both you and I

Came west to seek and make a home

That we might claim and call our own.

Without our kindred, friends or wealth,

We started forth with youth and health.

Whate'er we have, whate'er we've gained

We know we've honestly obtained,

And we grew strong in faith and hope,

And never thought of giving up.

To our store we added day by day,

And faithful friends have joined us on our way.

No woman ever bore a son

More true and faithful than our one,

And when he grew to man's estate

And sought and found a worthy mate,

We got our daughter ready grown

And took and loved her for our own.

But there's another blessing yet

And one we never can forget:

Our dearest Laurence--

The only grandchild we have left,

Since of the other one bereft;

But there is also present here

A cherub from another sphere.

He comes to us from realms above,

Drawn hither by the power of love.

We can but feel his presence here

To honor Grandma's eightieth year.

I do not know how many more

Of birthdays you may have in store.

It is not within our ken to know,

Just how much further you may have to go

Before you reach the end.

But whether near or far,

We all will meet you at the "Gates Ajar."

In my younger days I had been accustomed somewhat occasionally to

indulge myself in the attempt of writing what out of courtesy to my

literary qualifications might be called poetry, though my life was too

busy a life to indulge much in sentiment or even to indulge much in

imagination. Some time the year before I wrote this for my wife's

birthday, I composed and wrote the following for the benefit of the

Early Settler's Association of Polk county, which was sung with

considerable enthusiasm at several of their picnic celebrations. The

song is sung to the tune of "John Brown's body lies a mouldering in the

grave," and is as follows:

The early settlers' picnic has come around again,

And here we are together the few that still remain,

To exchange our hearty greetings and to join in this refrain,

As we go marching on.

Chorus--Glory, glory, hallelujah,

Glory, glory, hallelujah,

Glory, glory, hallelujah,

We still are marching on.

'Tis many years ago since we all came out west

To grow up with the country that is now the very best.

God gave the soil and climate and the settlers did the rest

When they came marching on.

Chorus--

We left our homes in yonder for the far off Iowa.

We came and saw her beauty and settled down to stay,

And there's not a soul among us that has ever rued the day

When we came marching on.

Chorus--

This is the land of promise where the milk and honey flow,

With corn and pumpkin plenty, and where pies and puddings grow,

With every other blessing that nature can bestow

As we go marching on.

Chorus--

We may seem a little older for our heads are silvered o'er,

But our hearts are still as young as they were in days of yore,

And we still recount the blessings the future has in store

As we go marching on.

Chorus--

This is a goodly land where we have lived and loved together;

We have borne the heat of Summer and faced the coldest weather.

Glory, hallelujah! our Iowa forever!

We still are marching on.

Chorus--

Our nation is united as it never was before,

All are happy and contented with old glory floating o'er.

We are coming Father Abraham with many millions more,

We all are marching on.

Chorus--

Our column is unbroken though some have gone before,

They have passed across the river and have reached the shining shore,

And are waiting there to greet us as they did in days of yore

When we were marching on.

Chorus--