George Hoadly, who has won at the bar of New York, a position of eminence
equal to that he for years maintained in Ohio, is, in all the essentials
of affection and personal loyalty, yet an “Ohio man,” for he remembers
the home of his youth, the scene of his early labors and professional
advancement, and the State that chose him to the highest position within
her gift. Like General Ewing and Col. Strong, he is already a well-known
figure in the metropolis, and is one of the men by whose labors the Ohio
Society has been made what it is.
If a man is aided by the “sort of grandfathers” he has inherited, Judge
Hoadly had as fair a start as is given anyone. The older lawyers of Ohio
speak with tender remembrance of “Squire Hoadly,” who for years was one
of the imposing figures of the bar of Cleveland, and whose purity of
character was matched only by his legal knowledge, and the justice with
which, in his magisterial character, he arbitrated the affairs of his
fellowmen. He made Cleveland his home in 1830; served one term as Mayor,
and for fifteen years as justice of the peace, then an office of greater
honor and responsibility than in these days of multiplied minor and
municipal courts.
The son, George Hoadly, was born in New Haven, Connecticut, on July 31,
1826, of a mother (Mary Anne Woolsey), who counted Jonathan Edwards among
her direct ancestors, President Dwight her uncle, President Woolsey her
younger brother, Theodore Winthrop, Sarah Woolsey, (“Susan Coolidge,”)
her nephew and niece. Carried to Ohio when but four years of age, his
primary education was received in the private school, conducted by the
late Franklin T. Backus, afterwards the leader of the Cleveland bar, and
Judge William Strong of Oregon. When fourteen years of age he entered
Western Reserve College, at Hudson, Ohio, from which he was graduated in
1844. It had already been impressed upon him by natural bent of mind and
inclination, and by the advice of those who had studied his character
and watched his growth, that the law was his proper profession, and he
accordingly spent a year in study at the famous law school at Cambridge,
Massachusetts, where he was under the instruction of Judge Story and
Prof. Greenleaf. One more year of close study was passed in the office
of Judge Charles C. Convers, at Zanesville, Ohio, and then young Hoadly
went to Cincinnati, and in the fall of 1846 entered the law office of
Chase & Ball, where he completed his studies, and was admitted to the bar
in August of the following year. An incident of more than passing moment
in his personal and professional life grew out of this connection. “Young
Hoadly,” says one of the governor’s biographers, “at once attracted the
attention and secured the warm and lasting friendship of his preceptor,
Salmon P. Chase, afterwards Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
the United States, who was well aware of the importance of attaching
to himself young men of ability, and, after a period of service as a
clerk, Mr. Hoadly was admitted, in 1849, as a junior partner into the
firm, which took the name of Chase, Ball & Hoadly. Mr. Chase was soon
thereafter elected United States Senator, and withdrew from professional
activity in Cincinnati, and this led to Hoadly’s appearing in important
cases very early in his career.”
Strong and able in his profession, and popular with the people, the
young lawyer’s way to official distinction was soon opened. In 1851, the
State Legislature elected him Judge of the Superior Court of Cincinnati,
for the residue of the term to which that court had been limited by the
constitutional convention. He ably served in this position until 1853,
when the court ceased its functions, and he then formed a co-partnership
with Edward Mills. He was city solicitor of Cincinnati in 1855, and
1856, and became a member of the present Superior Court in 1859. Twice
was he offered a seat upon the Supreme Bench of Ohio, but each time he
declined. In 1856, the proffer came from Governor Chase, and in 1862
from Governor Tod. In 1864 he was re-elected to the bench, but resigned
in 1866, at which time the firm of Hoadly, Jackson & Johnson was formed.
The late Judge Alphonse Taft was his successor upon the bench. The new
combination was soon ranked among the great law firms of the country, and
Judge Hoadly was classed as one of the ablest and soundest of American
jurists. Of this period of his life, an historian of Ohio has said: “They
(the above mentioned law firm), have successfully tried some of the great
railroad cases of the day, and are as noted in these cases in Ohio as
was Samuel J. Tilden in New York ten years ago in litigation of the same
kind. Judge Hoadly has also appeared as counsel in the most important
litigations of other kinds tried in Ohio of late years, having among
others conducted victoriously the cases involving the use of the Bible in
the common schools of Cincinnati, the constitutionality of the Pond and
Scott laws, and in the United States Supreme Court overthrown the Federal
trade-mark system, and compelled the State of Tennessee to redeem the
issues of the Bank of Tennessee.”
A position where his peculiar legal powers were called into play, and
his knowledge of constitutional law and readiness in debate made him
a leader, was his membership in the Ohio constitutional convention of
1873-4, to which he was elected without opposition from Hamilton County.
Yet while engaged in the manifold duties of his profession, he found time
to engage in other fields of usefulness, serving as professor in the
Cincinnati Law School, a chair of which he held for over twenty years; a
trustee of the University of Cincinnati, and of the Cincinnati Museum;
member of the Committee of the School of Design; and was in other ways
the patron of the arts and sciences, and a promoter of their development
in his home city. Among other self-imposed tasks, he made himself
acquainted with the Spanish and German languages, and became as he calls
himself “a poor stenographer.”
While Judge Hoadly had thus far allowed his name to be used only
in connection with official positions directly in the line of his
profession, and while he had little taste and less time for the
practical part of politics, he still held pronounced views upon public
questions, and carefully watched the drift of events. He was from
the first a Democrat—as his father had been before him—a believer in
democratic principles as enunciated by the founders of the party who
were among the greatest of the founders of our government. And being a
Democrat to the logical conclusions of democracy, he took issue with
his party upon the question of human slavery. During the war, he acted
politically with the Union elements; when peace was restored and the
slave freed, he took part in the Liberal Republican movement of 1872,
and was a member of the Cincinnati convention, and of its Committee on
Resolutions, but disapproved of the nomination of Mr. Greeley with whom
he had no political principles in common except hatred of slavery and
belief in hard money. He withdrew from the convention immediately after
the nomination was made, and entered into correspondence with leading
Democrats, endeavoring to bring about the nomination of a Democratic
candidate whom he stood ready to support. Failing in this, he reluctantly
voted for Grant’s second election.
In 1876, Judge Hoadly earnestly entered into the movement known to
contemporary history as “Tilden and Reform,” believing that the interests
of the country would be best subserved by the election of Tilden and
Hendricks. In the memorable legal contest that ensued, before the
electoral commission, the Democratic Committee invited Judge Hoadly to
argue the Oregon and Florida cases before that body, which he did in
such manner as to make national a reputation for legal ability that had
heretofore been largely confined to his own portion of the West. This
probably caused his call to the (temporary) presidency of the Democratic
National Convention of 1880.
One of the immediate but unpremeditated fruits of this political
activity came in 1883, when Judge Hoadly was named by the Democrats
of Ohio as their candidate for governor. He entered upon the canvas
with activity, and his speeches at Hamilton and Piqua, were reported
and eagerly circulated by the Democratic State Committee as campaign
documents. After making some ten speeches, he was unfortunately stricken
with malarial fever, which prevented his continuing upon the stump until
the last week of the campaign. Although not yet entirely recovered, he
was able to appear in Cleveland, Sandusky, Toledo and Dayton, addressing
immense audiences with marked effect. A campaign that had of necessity
lagged because of the absence of its chief, took on a new vigor, the
Democratic heart was fired anew, and George Hoadly became Governor
of the State by the emphatic majority of 12,529 over Judge Foraker,
the Republican nominee. Not only this, but the close counties went
Democratic, a legislature was secured, and Henry B. Payne, the life-long
friend of Governor Hoadly’s father, was sent to represent Ohio in the
United States Senate.
It is a matter of settled historical opinion, that the Buckeye State,
with all its famous governors, was never possessed of a better chief
magistrate than the one whose administration opened under such favoring
influences. A knowledge of the needs of the state, gained from long
acquaintance, a wisdom that could be made effective in practical
affairs, calm judgment, and an eye that could look higher than the levels
of mere partisanship, were among the things that aided him; and “the
greatest good to the greatest number” was the principle that inspired all
his acts.
A renomination was, of course, a foregone conclusion. In 1885, the
Democratic State Convention proclaimed by acclamation that George Hoadly
should again become its candidate for governor. He accepted, although
knowing that Ohio was then practically a Republican State, and that one
man could hardly expect to accomplish the miracle of permanent Democracy.
Judge Foraker was once more the Republican choice, and in the fall
election was chosen by a vote of 359,281 to 341,830 for Hoadly; the Rev.
A. B. Leonard, the Prohibition candidate receiving 28,081, and John W.
Northrup, the Greenback candidate 2,001 votes. Although the defeat was
decisive, it was sweetened to Governor Hoadly by the fact that in 1885,
as in 1883, he ran ahead of his ticket, being defeated by the smallest,
and, in 1883 elected by the largest plurality given against or for any of
the gentlemen upon the same ticket.
When Governor Hoadly saw his successor duly inaugurated, he cheerfully
returned to the active labors of his profession, in Cincinnati, where
he remained until March, 1887, when the call to the chief city of the
Union came in such shape that it could not be ignored. His practice
had extended into such fields that the removal was almost a necessity,
and his health demanded a change of climate. He located in New York,
and became a partner in the firm of Hoadly, Lauterbach & Johnson—a firm
that stands in the front rank, and that has an immense clientage, not
only in New York, but all through the country. His chief thought and
ambition since then has been in his profession. In the spring of 1890,
Governor David B. Hill appointed him a member of the commission to revise
the judiciary article of the constitution of New York, but because of
professional engagements which detained him in the trial of a case in
Detroit, Michigan, during the entire spring and summer months of that
year, he was compelled to decline the appointment.
In recent years, Judge Hoadly has been honored by the degree of Doctor of
Laws, conferred by Yale College in 1885, by Dartmouth College in 1889,
while his own college, once Hudson but now Adelbert, gave him the same
title some years ago. He is a Free Mason, a Knight Templar, and has taken
the 33rd degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish rite, and has always
performed anything in his power to advance the interests of the order.
Of Judge Hoadly’s professional life in New York, much might be said, were
this the place to say it. Outside of that, little can be said, for he has
had time for little else. As “an Ohio man” he is always at home to any
Buckeye neighbor, or impression, or memory that connect him with the days
and scenes of his youth and early manhood. He may be seen occasionally
in the gatherings of the Ohio Society, and when there, he is not allowed
to remain in his seat unheard. Few men are as approachable in any walk
of life; few men more companionable when he can command leisure for
companionship. His friendships are strong, his decisions intuitive, his
principles those of his honored ancestors, and Jonathan Edwards’ severe
theology has had little reflection in his generous religious views.
A single phrase might sum up his whole life and character: A typical
American jurist and gentlemen.