settlers, if not one of the founders of Marietta, Ohio. Mr. Dix went
to Marietta, where he was given some employment by Mr. Ward. Neither
Mr. Butler nor Mr. Dix senior, had any knowledge of business, and I was
employed by them at a small advance in my pay, to sell the stock of
goods, and close the business of the store. After such sales as could
be made, the remainder of the stock was sold at auction the 23d day of
November. During the preceding night there was a fall of snow, and the
company came to the village in sleighs. The winter was severe, and
the snow continued to cover the ground until the 18th of April, when
the stage coaches for the north went on runners for the last time. The
summer of 1836 was so cold, that the corn crop was a failure. During
the year following corn brought from New Jersey sold for $2.50 per
bushel.
In 1835 the town of Groton was a place of much importance relatively.
It was the residence of several men of more than local fame. Timothy
Fuller, the father of Margaret, was living there. He was a lawyer of
considerable distinction, and he had held important public positions.
He had been a representative and senator in the Massachusetts
Legislature, speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives,
and a member of Congress from the Cambridge district from 1817 to 1825.
He died in October, 1835.
Mr. Fuller was a man of careful and regular habits, indeed he belonged
to a family noted for their devotion to the profession of law, and for
their odd manners and styles of dress.
Mr. Fuller's eldest son, Eugene, was afterwards a student in the law
office of George F. Farley. He was a good debater as a young man, but
as a student rather irregular. He went to New Orleans to reside,
became an editor of, or writer on, the _Picayune_, and on a return
voyage from Boston he was lost overboard.
Margaret Fuller continued to reside in Groton with her mother and the
other members of the family for several years--until about 1841, I
think. In the meantime I met her frequently, although she was several
years my senior. She was a teacher in the Sunday school, and at the
Sunday-evening teachers' meetings she was accustomed to set forth her
opinions with great frankness, and in a style which assumed that they
were not open to debate. While she lived at Groton she contributed to
the _Dial_.
In personal appearance Margaret Fuller was less attractive than one
might imagine from the portraits and engravings now seen. Her ability
was recognized, but the celebrity she attained finally was not
anticipated, probably, by any of her town acquaintances. Her writings
may justify the opinion that as a writer and thinker she is in the
front rank of American women.
Samuel Dana, who had been a judge for many years, president of the
Massachusetts Senate for three terms, and a member of Congress for one
term, was also a resident of Groton. He had been an active politician
on the Democratic or Jeffersonian side in politics, and for many years
in early life he had been the competitor of Timothy Bigelow, who had
been a resident of Groton and a leader in the Federal Party of the
State. The town supported Bigelow and returned him to the House, where
he became speaker for many sessions. Dana as a candidate for the
Massachusetts Senate was elected by the county of Middlesex then
Democratic, and for three terms he was president of the Senate. Judge
Dana was interested in a small social library that was kept in a
chamber over the store. It contained Josephus, Plutarch's Lives,
Rollins' Ancient History, and some other standard works whose titles I
do not now recall.
Judge Dana was also interested in the organization of a reading room
club in a building connected with the store. As clerk in charge of
the store I was custodian of the reading room and library. I found
time to read Plutarch and Josephus, and I was skeptic enough to
question in my own mind the passage in Josephus in regard to Jesus.
Judge Dana died in the month of November, 1835, at the age of sixty.
His hair was white and long, and his appearance was so venerable that
it is now difficult for me to realize that he was not seventy-five
years of age at least. His abilities were considerable, and his
descendants, in more than one instance, have shown distinguished
qualities.
Two other well-known lawyers, one of them a lawyer of eminence in the
profession, were also residents of the town; Benj. M. Farley and George
F. Farley, brothers. They were natives of the small town of Brookline,
N. H. The elder, Benj. M., had practised in Hollis, N. H., where by
economy and good care of his earnings he had acquired a competency. At
Groton he made no effort to obtain business, and acted for the most
part as an associate or aid to his brother, who was in the enjoyment of
a large practice and income, for those days and parts.
With George F. Farley, whose age ran with the century, I was well
acquainted from 1835 until his death in 1855. He was one of the small
number of men that I have known who underestimated their powers. In
one respect, perhaps, this was not true of Farley. He never appeared
wanting in courage for any legal struggle with the leaders of the bar
in New England. In the twenty years that I knew him he had for his
antagonists Webster, Choate, Davis, Curtis, Franklin, Dexter, and
others of eminence, and he never failed to sustain himself upon terms
of equality. This was remarkable in presence of the fact that he was
likely to be retained on the hard side of most cases. This was due,
perhaps, to his reputation for shrewdness, and for a quality in
practice which has been called the inventive faculty. When parties
were not allowed to testify, there was a wide field for the
imagination, and for the exercise of the inventive faculties on the
part of an advocate. He had defended, successfully, the Ursuline
Convent rioters, and he had been employed in many desperate cases on
the civil side and on the criminal side of the courts.
In his later years he read very little either in law, history, or
general literature. His law library was meager, although he had
usually one or two students in his office. He preferred to discuss his
cases with the loungers about the post-office and stores, getting
thereby the benefit of the opinions of common men.
His manner in speaking was inartistic, and although he was a graduate
of Harvard, he indulged himself in the use of country phrases and
rustic pronunciation. His logic was unanswerable, and his faculty of
cross-examination of witnesses was worthy of emulation.
He enjoyed a few books, the classics in the originals, but he seldom
indulged in a quotation. Byron as a poet, and Locke as a logician he
commended to me--the latter, Locke on the Human Understanding, with
great earnestness. Under his advice I read it carefully, and for
mental training he did not overvalue it. Farley commenced the practice
of his profession at New Ipswich, N. H., and that town elected him once
or twice to the Legislature of the State. Wishing for a wider field,
he came to Groton. It was a day of small fees, and a good deal of the
litigation grew out of the intemperate habits of the farmers.
In New Hampshire fees were even more moderate than in Massachusetts.
If Farley had estimated his talents at their full value and had taken
an office in Boston or New York, he could have gratified his love for
money without disturbing his relations to his neighbors. In minor ways
he was acquisitive and consequently there came to be a public sentiment
which excluded him from public employments. His political course was
not more erratic than that of many others, but his change of position
was ascribed to policy and not to principle. In 1840 he was a Whig, in
1850 he was a Free-soiler, and in 1855 he was a Republican. In the
autumn of the year 1855 he was elected a member of the State Convention
of the Republican Party.
A day or two before the meeting of the convention I was passing by his
premises where he was engaged apparently in examining a buggy which his
man had been putting in order. The conversation turned upon politics,
and I soon discovered that he wished for a nomination to the
Legislature, and without admitting the fact, his remarks showed that he
comprehended the nature of the obstacles in his way. At last he said:
"When I began I thought the main thing was to get money; and I have got
it; and it is very convenient to have it, but it isn't just what I
thought it was when I began."
He went to the convention, took a cold which developed into a fever,
and in a week he died.
[* When I became Secretary of the Treasury, in 1869, I appointed Hubbard
to a minor office in the revenue service in the State of Kentucky,
where he then lived.]
VI
GROTON IN 1835--(Continued)
There were two other lawyers in town, Caleb Butler, the postmaster, and
Bradford Russell. Mr. Butler never appeared in court. He gave advice
in small matters, wrote deeds and wills, surveyed lands, and served his
neighbors in fiduciary ways. For many years he was a member, and a
useful member, of the Board of Commissioners for the County of
Middlesex. That body laid out highways, superintended the public
buildings, and in a word did what no other authority in the county or
State had a right to do. Mr. Butler was a Whig, and after a time his
politics lost him the office of postmaster and the office of
commissioner.
With Bradford Russell I commenced the study of law, or rather I entered
my name with him and gave some night work to the study of books bearing
upon the profession. His office was over the store in which I became a
clerk in December, 1835. Russell was a graduate of Harvard, of the
class of 1818. For many years two other members of that class resided
at Groton--Dr. Joshua Green, and the Rev. Charles Robinson, pastor of
the old society, then ranked as Unitarian. Mr. Russell had studied his
profession with Judge James Prescott, who was impeached and removed
from the office of Judge of Probate for the county of Middlesex in the
year 1821. Judge Prescott, whom I never saw, was a good lawyer in his
time, especially in the department of special pleading. That branch of
the profession was then passing away, but there were lawyers who lived
by their skill in preparing answers, rejoinders, sur-rejoinders,
rebutters, and sur-rebutters. Russell had acquired a large amount of
special learning in the law, but he had no capacity to comprehend
principles, nor could he see the application of old decisions to new
cases. In argument he was weak and inconclusive, but he was confident
in his own powers, and favored as he was at times by the accidents and
hazards of the profession, he gained some victories. In the final
trials at the county court he usually secured the services of senior
counsel who could meet Farley, his usual antagonist, upon an equality
of standing. Most frequently he secured the services of Sam Mann of
Lowell, as he was then called. The name of the town was affixed
generally, as though the advocate had been so christened.
Mann was able, confident, and bold. He died young, after a brilliant
career. In many cases Mann and Farley were associated. When this
combination appeared, the opposing counsel were hard-pressed, usually.
In those days a story was set afloat which, though false, gave voice to
the popular notion. When the court was held at Cambridge, Farley and
Mann boarded together at the Mansion House, Charlestown Square. It was
said that when they were associated in a case, they were in the habit
of examining and cross-examining the witnesses. On one of these
occasions, as the story went, Mann conducted the examination, and
Farley followed with the cross. Under his hand the witnesses went to
pieces. After the witnesses left, Farley said, "We can never succeed
if those are your witnesses." Mann replied: "Oh, those are the
witnesses for the other side. To-morrow evening I will show you my
witnesses." When the evening came, the same witnesses came also.
They were again subject to examination and cross-examination, and
proved impregnable under Farley's hand. An invention, no doubt, and
yet the story had a run.
Although Russell was not a competitor in any sense with such
antagonists as Farley and Mann, he was in the enjoyment of a practice
that was sufficient for a living, and a prudent man would have made it
the beginning of a moderate fortune. He had neither skill in money
matters nor ordinary economy. Hence he was always in debt. At one
term of the court he entered fifty-eight writs, and there were terms
when he had from seventy to one hundred cases on the docket. Each of
these cases gave him thirty-three and one third cents costs for every
day of the term.
Russell held the office of Master in Chancery. In 1838 the Insolvent
Law was enacted, and its administration was confided to Masters in
Chancery. Russell soon gained a reputation for leniency in the matter
of granting discharges to the insolvent debtors, and his business
increased rapidly. His jurisdiction was the whole county, and although
there were several masters in the county, his fame was such that
petitions came from Lowell, Waltham and other places where masters had
offices. I was appointed clerk in insolvency, at five dollars a day
when a court was held. In this way I gained some needed income,
acquired a knowledge of the Insolvent Law, and more than all, I gained
the acquaintances of the leading lawyers of the county. As debtors and
witnesses were examined, I may have gained something in practice. The
Insolvent Law, amended, to be sure, has remained on the statute books
of Massachusetts to this day, and the United States Bankrupt Law was
modeled upon it. Indeed, there can never by any wide departure from
the provisions of that statute, and from its principles no departure
whatever can be made.
A leading man, and a character in the town, was Thomas A. Staples. He
was a native of the neighboring town of Shirley. He was a man of large
size, handsome figure, resolute in his purposes, and vindictive in his
enmities. His chief business was that of stage proprietor, and mail
contractor. He was always in debt, and tardy, of course, in his
payments. He was involved in lawsuits, and many of his debts were paid
upon executions. His mail contracts were so large that he sublet many
of the routes, and he was always in debt to sub-contractors. He had a
stage office in Boston for a time at the Hanover House, and after that
at No. 9 Court Street. His office was the headquarters of country
traders and others who patronized his lines of stages. In the year
1838 or later, I was in his office when Alvin Adams, the founder of the
Adams Express Company, made his first trip to New York as an express
messenger. Staples afterward stated in conversation that Adams had but
one parcel, and that he loaned him five dollars to meet his expenses.
At that time Harnden's express was in operation with an office at No. 8
Court Street. Harnden's company disappeared in a few years, and the
Adams Express Company became an institution that has the appearance of
perpetuity. At a time perhaps as late as 1850, I met Adams on
Washington Street, when he expressed the opinion that his business was
as profitable as any business in the country.
Staples was engaged also in paper making with mills upon the upper
falls of the Squannacook River. This branch of his business was
especially unfortunate, and in 1836 he assigned his property to Henry
Woods, Daniel Shattuck, and Joshua B. Fowle. Mr. Woods was a trader in
whose employment I then was, having let myself to him when I left the
Dix store December 1, 1835, for my board and $150 a year. Agreement
for one year. The assignees were all friends of Staples. The last
named was Calvin Childs, a blacksmith, to whom Staples owed about two
thousand dollars. The assignees proceeded to execute their trust, and
as collections were made, payments were made until all the debts were
paid except the debt to Childs. Mr. Woods died in 1841. Shattuck died
in 1850, and the trust was not then executed. Fowle paid Childs six
hundred dollars, but he made no settlement of the trust. In 1853
Childs applied to Russell for counsel and assistance. Russell filed a
bill on the equity side of the court. A lawyer, named Fiske, of
Boston, was retained by Fowle. Fiske answered. Russell employed the
Hon. Charles R. Train to assist in the trial, but there was no hearing.
In 1858 Train was elected to Congress. About 1860 Russell came to me
for assistance and put into my hands a large bundle of papers relating
to the case. At that time Russell was so impaired in health that he
could not aid in the investigation. Upon an examination I found that
the testimony of Staples was important. He then lived at Machias,
Maine. By writing and interviews when I found him in Boston, I became
satisfied that for a hidden reason he was resolved to have nothing to
do with the case. As a last resort, I took out a commission and
submitted interrogatories. The answers were evasive or valueless from
loss of memory. Thus the case was delayed. In 1862 I was elected to
Congress. Childs was an easy going man who made inquiries
occasionally, but never complained. Upon my return from a session,
about 1865, I resolved to bring the case to a close. I examined the
papers carefully, and I found full material for a statement, although
it cost labor to analyze the accounts. At that time Russell was dead
and Fiske was dead. Mr. John Loring, a former partner of Fiske, took
the case. Loring agreed to a hearing at Chambers. Chief Justice
Chapman named a day. At the day named the clients and counsel
appeared. I presented my statement in writing. Loring and Fowle said
they knew nothing about the matter. My statement showed a balance of
between $400 and $500 in Fowle's hands. I asked for interest. Fowle
said he had been ready always to pay. I contended it was his duty long
before to have rendered an account, and made payment. Judge Chapman,
with less reason than courts have usually for their decisions, held
that as he was always ready to pay, he was not justly chargeable with
interest. I drew a decree, the judge signed it, Fowle paid, and Childs
returned home that night. For ten years the case had been on the
docket, when, if some one had made an examination of the papers it
could have been disposed of in a day.
The controversy in New England between Trinitarians and Unitarians had
culminated in Groton about the year 1825 in a division of the old town
society and the organization of an orthodox church under the Rev. John
Todd. His successor, a Mr. Kittredge, had charge of the Society in
1835, and for a short time afterwards. He was succeeded by Dudley
Phelps, who was a man of ability and liberal in his religious opinions.
From 1838 to 1841 the post-office was in my charge, although I held the
office of postmaster only from February to April, 1841. Mr. Phelps
was in the habit of sitting in the office and reading every sort of
newspaper from the _Trumpet_ to the _Investigator_. Although he was
much my senior, and of differing opinions in politics and religion our
relations were quite intimate. For several years we were joint
subscribers for the four leading English reviews:--_Edinburgh, North
British, Quarterly_ and _Westminster_. My recollection is that he
made the dedicatory prayer at the new cemetery, and that he was the
first person buried in it. He was a man of talent and the father of
two sons, who attained distinction at the bar in New York.
The Rev. Charles Robinson was the pastor of the old society then
Unitarian, but without question as to the plenary inspiration of the
Scriptures. He was a graduate of Harvard, a man of learning, and a
writer of good sermons. In the delivery he was faulty to the last
stage of awkwardness. His perceptive faculties were dull to a degree
without parallel in my experience.
In 1835 and for some time afterwards, there were four taverns and
three stores at which intoxicating liquors were sold and the use of
such liquors by farmers was greatly in excess of their use at the
present time. In the early winter the country farmers from New
Hampshire and Vermont going to Boston, with butter, cheese, pork and
poultry, patronized the taverns, and gave the town an appearance of
business which contrasts with the aspect of dullness that it now
wears. The prices for entertainment at the taverns were moderate,
and none of the proprietors accumulated property.
VII
BEGINNINGS IN BUSINESS
In the autumn of 1837 as my second year with Mr. Woods was approaching
a close, I informed him that I proposed to go to Exeter, N. H., attend
the Academy, and then either enter college or proceed with the study of
the law. At about the same time I corresponded with Mr. Abbott, the
principal of the Academy, in regard to terms, board, etc.. Upon this
notice Mr. Woods made me a proposition to continue with him and share
the business. He offered to furnish the capital, to give me my board,
and one fourth of the net profits. My means were very small, the
business was quite sure to yield a profit, and the prospect of
gaining a small amount of capital at the age of twenty-three, when the
partnership was to end, controlled me and I accepted the proposition.
The partnership began March 1, 1838, when I was two months over twenty
years of age. I had then been in Groton three years, and I had formed
the acquaintance of many young men in the Lyceum, in business and in
social ways. In connection with the Lyceum I prepared papers which I
read as lectures. One of these papers upon banking, signed B.,
appeared in the Bay State _Democrat_, edited by Lewis Josselyn, the
publisher. Another upon Conservatism and Religion, was also printed in
the Bay State _Democrat_. As I did not give my name to Mr. Josselyn,
and as the letters were mailed at Groton, he came there and after
inquiries, called upon me. I admitted the authorship. This
acquaintance continued for many years, and for many years I was a
contributor to his paper. He was elected secretary of the Senate in
1843 by the Democratic Party. A little later I wrote an article
called "Gibbet Hill" in which I attempted to present the tradition
concerning the hill in Groton which bears that name. That article was
printed in the _Yeoman's Gazette_ or the Concord _Freeman_. For
several years beginning about the year 1836, I wrote one paper each
year called a lecture. Several of these papers were printed in Hunt's
_Merchants' Magazine_.
From 1835 to 1841 I occupied the store night and day and it was my
custom to read and write until twelve, one or two o'clock in the
morning. These were my years of hard study. Not infrequently, when
a tendency to sleep was too heavy for study, I bathed my face and head
in cold water and thus revived my faculties--a practice, however, that
I cannot commend. Early in my residence in Groton, I formed the
acquaintance and friendship of Dr. Amos B. Bancroft, a friendship which
continued until his death in Italy in the year 1879. It was with Dr.
Bancroft that I continued my studies in Latin. In 1835, he had
finished his professional studies with Dr. Shattuck, of Boston, then
an eminent physician. Dr. Shattuck had studied his profession with Dr.
Amos Bancroft, the father of Amos B. Dr. Amos, as he was called, was
a graduate of Harvard College in the class of Wendell Phillips, and at
the close of his professional studies he was spoken of as the best
educated physician who had entered the profession in Boston. At the
time our acquaintance began, he was entering upon the practice of
medicine, at Groton, in place of his father, who was then about sixty-
five years of age, deaf, and not healthy in other respects, although he
lived to the age of eighty years, and then died from an accident in
State Street, Boston. Dr. Bancroft, Sr., lived in a house which stood
about one hundred feet north of my present residence, and the office of
Dr. Amos was on the spot now occupied by the front of my house. At the
close of business for the day, nine o'clock in the evening, I was in
the habit of going to the office and reciting my Latin lesson, after
which we discussed other matters. Upon my return to the store, I
prepared myself for the next evening's recitation. In this way I read
Caesar and Virgil. In a closet in Bancroft's office there was a
skeleton. That skeleton had a history, and possibly there may be a
sequel to it. It was understood to have been the skeleton of a man
named Jack Frost, who was tried, convicted and executed at Worcester
for the crime of murder committed at or near Princeton. Dr. Bancroft,
Sr., had been the owner of the skeleton. Oftentimes I rode Sundays
with Dr. Amos. On the occasion of one of these drives, and after the
death of Dr. Bancroft, Sr., we passed the house of a waggish old man
named Asa Tarbell. After a little conversation Tarbell said, "I shall
be over soon for Frost's skeleton." Dr. Amos, amazed, looked over and
through his glasses, and said, at length: "Why, what do you mean?"
Said Tarbell: "Some years ago, your father and I were playing, and I
proposed to put my uncle Ben against your Frost. Your father agreed to
the game, and I won. I told him I had no use for Frost at that time,
and that he might keep him." Tarbell's Uncle Ben was a man of inferior
size, hardly more than a dwarf, who had been a drummer boy in the
Revolution.
I bought the Bancroft estate in 1873, and my foreman, Mr. William A.
Chase informed me that he had found a skeleton, in a barrel in a shed,
and that he had buried it on the place. If again found it may lead to
the suspicion that it is the skeleton of a murdered man, and not that
of a murderer.
From 1835 to 1841, I read Locke, Say's Political Economy, Smith's
Wealth of Nations, Plutarch, Josephus, Herodotus, Lingard, Hume and
Smollett, Cicero, Demosthenes, Homer, Pope, Byron, Shakespeare,
Boswell's Johnson, Junius, The Tattler, The Rambler, the English
Reviews, French from text-books without a teacher and Rhetoric (Blair's
full edition). Much of Blair's Rhetoric I studied carefully and with
great benefit. Some of my papers of those days were written and re-
written four times. On the law side I read a few text-books:
Blackstone, Story on the Constitution, The Federalist, De Lohme on the
British Constitution, and some other works, probably, which I do not at
once recall. If I gained some knowledge of the law as practised in the
country, that knowledge was gained from an acquaintance with the
lawyers and from my opportunities as Clerk of the Insolvency Court.
In the year 1836, July 4, an Act was passed by Congress, granting to
a class of widows of soldiers of the War of the Revolution, a pension
for a term of five years. The towns of Groton, Pepperell and Shirley
had supplied a large number of soldiers, and there were many widows who
were entitled to the benefits of the Act. My acquaintance as clerk was
already large, and my studies with Russell had given me the faculty of
preparing ordinary papers, and I at once commenced canvassing for the
business. I obtained in all about fifty cases under the Act of 1836.
Subsequently I obtained other cases under the Act of 1838. I sent the
applications forward to Washington, and in a few cases certificates
were received in return. In a majority of cases there was a delay.
The women became anxious and their visits and importunities were
annoying. In the month of January, 1839, I joined Gen. Staples and
made a visit to Washington. Staples' object was to make mail
contracts, or to arrange existing difficulties. My purpose was to
obtain action on pension applications. Our journey was a slow one, if
not tedious. From Groton to Boston by stage, and from Boston to
Stonington, Conn., by rail; from Stonington to New York by steamboat;
from New York to Perth Amboy by steamboat; from Perth Amboy by rail, I
think, but possibly by stage to a town on the Delaware River, Franklin
perhaps. From that point to Philadelphia, by steamboat. Our journey
from Philadelphia to Washington was by rail in part and in part by
stage. We passed the creeks between the Susquehanna and Baltimore upon
a railroad.
We stopped overnight in New York, and went to the Park Theater.
Another night we spent in Philadelphia, and went to the Chestnut Street
Theater. Staples had a fondness for theaters, and on these occasions
I followed his example. I had been in a theater but one, when I saw
Forrest in Boston, in King Lear. At Philadelphia I bought a copy of
Byron for three dollars. That volume I have yet.
The Hon. William Parmenter, a Democrat, then represented the district
in Congress, and I carried one or more letters to him--one from my
employer Mr. Henry Woods, who was an active Democrat. Mr. Parmenter
was then about fifty years of age, of heavy frame, swarthy in
complexion, and a man of good natural abilities. He took me to Mr.
Van Buren. We found him alone, well dressed, polite and rather
gracious than otherwise. Quite early in my visit, Mr. Parmenter took
me to the Pension Office, then presided over by Mr. Edwards. Mr.
Parmenter stated his business, and immediately attention was given to
my applications. In the course of a few days some of the cases were
disposed of, and in a few weeks my docket was clear.
Caleb Butler was then postmaster at Groton. He had had the place,
probably from the days of John Quincy Adams, for as he was a violent
Whig, he could not have received his appointment from General Jackson.
My employer, Mr. Woods, was an applicant for the post-office, he being
the only Democrat in the street who had accommodations for the office.
I carried papers in support of the application. Those I gave probably
to Mr. Parmenter, as I have no recollection of any interview with any
post-office official. Amos Kendall was then Postmaster-General. He
was a native of Dunstable, and he had been a student at the Groton
Academy when Mr. Butler was the preceptor. Naturally and properly he
sustained his old teacher. The change however was made, and upon the
express instructions of Mr. Van Buren it was said. Mr. Woods retained
the office until his death in January, 1841, when I was appointed
without any agency of my own, but by the agency as I supposed of Gen.
Staples. Upon the election of General Harrison I was removed in the
month of April, and Mr. Butler was reappointed, an act of which I
never complained, nor had I any reason to complain.
At Washington we stopped at Gadsby's Hotel, now the National. There I
met and had some acquaintance with Matthew L. Davis, "the Spy in
Washington" as he called himself. He was a newspaper correspondent and
the biographer of Aaron Burr. He was a great admirer of Burr. Davis
wore very thin clothing, scouted overcoats, and boasted that he slept
always in a room with open windows, and under very light bed clothing.
He was old and conceited, and as a permanent companion, he could not
have been otherwise than disagreeable.
At the Supreme Court I heard arguments by Webster and Crittenden, on
opposite sides. In the Senate I heard Webster, Clay, Calhoun, and
others in running debate, but not in prepared speeches. The Senate
then contained many other men of note. Silas Wright, of New York;
Preston, of South Carolina; Benton, of Missouri; Linn, of Missouri,
more remarkable for personal beauty than talents. In the House Mr.
Adams was then a chief figure. His contest over the right of petition
had commended him to one portion of the country, and made him the
object of hostility to another portion. I recall one Monday, when he
had the right to present petitions, and although they were laid on the
table without debate he was able to consume time by presenting them
singly. As the supply in his hands and on the table seemed
inexhaustible, a compromise was made finally, and the petitions went in
in a mass. Of other speakers that I heard I recall Henry A. Wise, and
Sergeant S. Prentiss. Of their style and quality I can say nothing.
The reported speeches of Prentiss do not justify the reputation that he
enjoyed as an orator when living.
The incident which produced the most lasting impression upon me, when
in Washington, was an interview with a slave, a woman fifty years or
more of age. I had then no love for the system of slavery. I had read
Clarkson's and Wilberforce's writings, and I knew the history of the
struggle in England for the abolition of the slave trade, and slavery
in the British West Indies. I had also attended some anti-slavery
meetings in Massachusetts, at which the leaders, Phillips, Garrison,
Foster, Parker, and Pillsbury had denounced the institution. Groton
was a center of anti-slavery operations in that part of the State.
Several copies of the _Liberator_ were taken in the town, and anti-
slavery meetings were held not infrequently. The first speech that
George Thompson made in America was made in Groton.
One Sunday morning I walked out towards what is now called the Island.
The road was marked by a rail fence, but of buildings there were none.
I went so far that I was near the slave pen, a building now standing
and which I have visited within a few years. It was of brick, enclosed
within a brick wall, and all of a dingy straw color. At a short
distance from the building, I met a black woman walking slowly away
from it. I said to her: "What building is that?" At once she was in
tears, and she said: "That is the pen where the poor black people are
kept who are going down to Louisiana." She had then been to visit her
daughter, a girl of about eighteen years of age, according to the
mother's statement, who was to leave the next morning. She was the
last of a family of nine as the woman said, who had been sold and taken
away from her. As I was leaving I said: "Who is your master?" She
answered: "Mr. Blair, of the _Globe_." In the fourteen years of my
manhood, that I acted with the Democratic party, I never said anything
in favor of the system of slavery. If otherwise I might have done so,
the interview with that old woman would have restrained me.
VIII
FIRST EXPERIENCE IN POLITICS
At the spring election of Groton in 1839, I was chosen a member of the
school committee. The other members had been in the service in
previous years. They were the Rev. Charles Robinson, the Rev. Mr.
Kittredge, Dr. Joshua Green, and Dr. George Stearns. In the early
Colonial period the "minister" was often the schoolmaster also.
Naturally he took an interest in the education of the children, and
previous to the time when school committees were required by statute,
he was the self-constituted guide of the teachers and schools. Indeed,
the schools were parochial. Whenever the minister visited a school he
made a prayer, and the morning exercise in reading was in the New
Testament Scriptures--two verses by each pupil. In 1840 the entire
board was rejected, and a board composed of school teachers and non-
professional men was chosen.
In 1838 the Massachusetts Legislature passed what was known as the
Fifteen-Gallon Law. The statute prohibited the sale of distilled
spirits in "less quantity than fifteen gallons." It did not take
effect immediately and the election of that year was not seriously
disturbed, but before the autumn of 1839 the State was thoroughly
aroused. A cry was raised that it was a law to oppress the poor who
could not command means to purchase the quantity named, while the rich
would enjoy the use of liquor notwithstanding the statute. The town of
Groton was entitled to two members in the house of representatives.
Both parties nominated candidates who favored the repeal of the
Fifteen-Gallon Law. The temperance voters put a ticket in the field,
the Rev. Amasa Sanderson, the minister of the Baptist Society, then a
new organization, and feeble in numbers and wealth, and myself. At
that time my associations were largely with Whigs, but I was opposed to
a national bank, and in favor of free trade. With those views it was
not possible for me to act with the Whig Party on national questions
or in national contests. Mr. Sanderson and I received about seventy-
six votes, and as none of the candidates had a majority, the town was
unrepresented.
Edward Everett was Governor when the law was passed, and he was a
candidate for re-election in 1839. I supported Mr. Everett on the
temperance issue against Judge Marcus Morton, who was the candidate of
the Democratic Party. Judge Morton had been on the bench of the
Supreme Judicial Court where he had the reputation of an able judge by
the side of Shaw, Wilde and Putnam. At that time I had not seen
Morton or Everett. In the year 1836 or 1837 I went to Boston to hear
Alex. H. Everett deliver a Democratic Fourth of July oration. The
effort was a disappointment to me. A. H. Everett had a reputation as
an orator, but he was far inferior to his brother Edward. In later
years I heard Edward Everett often. His genius in preparation and in
the delivery of his orations and speeches was quite equal to anything
we can imagine at Athens and by Athenian orators, excepting only the
force of his argument.
In 1851 or 1852 I was present at an agricultural fair at Northampton
and in company with Mr. Everett. After dinner speeches were made.
When we rode to the fair grounds in the morning a dense river fog
covered the valley but at ten o'clock it lifted, and the day became
clear. At the dinner Mr. Everett in his speech described the morning,
the dense fog, the lifting, the sun illuminating first the hills and
then the valleys, revealing the spires of the churches, etc. For the
moment I was deceived. But when he had concluded I saw him hand his
manuscript to a reporter and the speech appeared the next morning,
verbatim as he had delivered it. He knew the river towns, and he knew
that every fair day in autumn was preceded by a dense fog, and the
speech was written upon that theory. What alternative he had prepared
in case of a rain, I know not.
As a judge, and at the same time the candidate of the Democratic Party
for Governor for many years, the rank and file of the party came to
regard Judge Morton as a man of fine abilities and sterling integrity.
His abilities were sturdy rather than attractive. In this respect he
was the opposite of Governor Everett. In the canvass of 1839 Morton
was elected by one vote in a contest of unusual warmth. This election
removed him from the bench, much to his regret, it was said, as under
the circumstances he could hardly hope for a re-election. The House
and Senate were controlled by the Whigs, and the Governor was
surrounded by a council composed of Whigs. The Fifteen-Gallon Law was
repealed and in other respects the government was not different from
what it would have been had Mr. Everett been re-elected.
Governor Morton continued to be the Democratic candidate, and though
defeated in 1840 and 1841 by John Davis, he was again elected in 1843
by the Legislature, there having been no choice by the people, a
majority being required. The Senate was Democratic by a considerable
majority. The House was equally divided at the opening of the session,
and there were four abolitionists who held the balance of power. After
several trials the Whigs succeeded in electing Daniel P. King of
Danvers, by the help of one or more of the abolitionists. There were
several contested seats, and when the house had been purged, as the
process was called, the Democrats were in a majority. The session was
a short one. A few political measures were passed, salaries were
reduced, and much below a reasonable compensation for those days even.
Governor Morton had a Democratic Council, but they were not agreed in
policy and the administration lost strength even with Democrats. Its
defeat in the autumn was inevitable, and Gov. Morton ceased to be a
candidate for an office that he had sought in twenty elections and
gained in two. With others I lost confidence in his ability, but that
confidence I afterwards regained.
He was a member of the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1853,
and in that body his ability was conspicuous. His style was clear and
logical, and his processes of reasoning were legal and judicial in
character. In his speeches he avoided authorities and spurned notes.
He prepared himself by reading and reflection, and the arrangement was
dictated by the logic of the case. His speeches were the speeches of a
strong man, and he was a dangerous antagonist in debate. His reasoning
was faultless and he kept his argument free from all surplus matter.
In a conversation that I once had with him at his home in Taunton, he
said that the best legal argument to which he had ever listened was
made by Samuel Dexter. As Governor Morton had heard Pinckney, Wirt,
Webster, Mason, Choate, Curtis and many others, the praise of Dexter
was not faint praise.
IX
THE ELECTION OF 1840
In the early summer of 1840 the great contest began, which ended in the
defeat of Mr. Van Buren and the election of Gen. Harrison to the
Presidency. The real issues were not much discussed--certainly not by
the Whigs. In reality the results were due to the general prostration
of business and the utter discredit that had fallen upon General
Jackson's pet bank system. The Independent Treasury System, as it was
termed by Democrats, or the Sub-Treasury System, as it was called by
the Whigs, had not been tested.
The country was tired of experiments and all the evils, which were
many, that then afflicted the people, were attributed to the
experiments of General Jackson in vetoing the bills for the recharter
of the United States Bank and for the institution of the pet bank
system. In truth the country was wedded to the idea that the funds of
the government should be so placed that they could be used to
facilitate business. That idea and the practice arising from it were
full of peril. In the infancy of a country, when the resources are
inadequate, a national bank, assuming that it is managed honestly and
wisely, may be an important aid, but time being given, it will
inevitably become a political machine in a country, like the United
States, where the political aspirations of the people are active and
the temptations to seek the aid of the money power are always great.
Even in modern time, with a surplus of millions in the banks of the
city of New York, for which no proper use could be found, there are
indications of a purpose to return to the pet bank system under
another name.
Gen. Harrison, the nominee of the Whig Party, was then sixty-seven
years of age by the record, but the public opinion credited him with
several more years. His mental powers were not of superior quality,
and his life had not been of a sort to develop his faculties. He had
done good service in the Indian wars of the frontier and as commander
in the battle of Tippecanoe he had won a reputation as a soldier.
During the war of 1812, he commanded the army of the Northwest, and
with honor. He had had a seat in each House of Congress, he had
represented the government at the capital of a South American Republic,
and all with credit, and all without distinction. His career had been
sufficiently conspicuous to justify his friends in eulogies in the
party papers and speeches; and neither as good policy nor just
treatment should his opponents have been betrayed into criticisms of
his military and civil life. The Democrats were unwise enough to raise
an issue upon his military career, and the result was greatly to their
loss. His frontier life in a log cabin was also the subject of
ridicule at the opening of the campaign. The Whigs accepted the issue,
built log cabins on wheels and drew them over the country from one mass
meeting to another. The unfortunate remark was made by a writer or
speaker that if Harrison had a log cabin and plenty of hard cider he
would be content. A barrel became the emblem of the Whig Party. The
log cabin was furnished with a cider barrel at the door, and the
emblematic barrel was seen on cane heads and breast pins.
Mr. Webster struck a fatal blow at the error of the Democratic Party:
--"Let him be the log cabin candidate. What you say in scorn we will
shout with all our lungs. * * * It did not happen to me to be born in a
log cabin; but my elder brother and sisters were born in a log cabin
raised amid the snow drifts of New Hampshire, at a period so early that
when the smoke first rose from its rude chimney and curled over the
frozen hills there was no similar evidence of a white man's habitation
between it and the settlements on the rivers of Canada. * * * If ever I
am ashamed of it, or if I ever fail in affectionate remembrance of him
who reared it, and defended it against savage violence and destruction,
cherished all the domestic virtues beneath its roof, and through the
fire and blood of a seven years' Revolutionary war, shrunk from no
danger, no toil, no sacrifice to save his country and to raise his
children to a condition better than his own, may my name and the name
of my posterity be blotted forever from the memory of mankind."
John Tyler of Virginia, was placed on the Whig ticket as the candidate
for Vice-President. Tyler had been a Democrat and the opinions of the
States Rights wing of the Democratic Party were his opinions,
notwithstanding his associations with the Whig Party. His nomination
was due to the disposition to balance the ticket by selecting one of
the candidates from each wing of the party--and there are always two
wings to a party.
Of poetry the Whig writers furnished much more than was enjoyed by
Democrats. An effort was made to stay the tide in favor of Harrison
by poetry as well as by argument. The effort was fruitless. The
contest of 1840 had its origin in the most distressing financial
difficulties that ever rested upon the country, and it was conducted
on the part of the Whigs by large expenditure of money, for those days,
and with a degree of hilarity and good nature that it is difficult now
to realize. This may have been due to general confidence, and to a
consequent belief that a change of administration would be followed by
general prosperity.
The Whigs were not under the necessity of submitting arguments to their
followers, and the arguments of Democrats were of no avail. The Whig
papers in all parts of the country contained lists of names of
Democrats who were supporting General Harrison. Occasionally the
Democratic papers could furnish a short list of Whigs who declared for
Van Buren in preference to Harrison. The most absurd stories were told
of the administration, and apparently they were accepted as truth.
Charles J. Ogle, of Pennsylvania, delivered a speech in the House of
Representatives in which he marshaled all the absurd stories that were
afloat. He charged among other things that Van Buren had sets of gold
spoons. The foundation for the statement was the fact that there were
spoons in the Executive Mansion that were plated or washed with gold on
the inside of the bowls. The spoons were there in General Grant's
time, but so much like brass or copper in appearance that one would
hesitate about using them. Another idle story believed by the masses
was that the Navy bought wood in New Orleans at a cost of twenty-four
dollars a cord and carried it to Florida for the use of the troops
during the Seminole war of 1837-8. Isaac C. Morse, of Louisiana, was
one of the Congressional bearers or mourners at the funeral of John
Quincy Adams, in 1848. He was a Whig member and his district in 1840
was on the Texas frontier. At one of the evening sessions of mourning,
while the Committee was in Boston, he gave an account of his campaign,
and he recited a speech made by a young orator who went out with him as
an aid. The speech opened thus: "Fellow Citizens; who is Daniel
Webster? Daniel Webster is a man up in Massachusetts making a
dictionary. Who is General Harrison? Everybody knows who General
Harrison is. He is Tippecanoe and Tyler too. But who is Martin Van
Bulen? Martin Van Bulen! He is the man who bought the wood in the
Orleans, paid twenty-four dollars a cord for it, carried it round to
Florida and had to cut down the trees to land it." A fellow in the
crowd cried out, "Carrying coals to Newcastle." "Yes," said the
speaker, "them coals he carried to Newcastle. I don't know so much
about the coals, but about the wood I've got the documents."
The general public was not only disposed to accept every wild
statement, but the average intelligence was much below the present
standard, and the means of communication were poor. If, however,
there had been no canvass, the overthrow of Van Buren would have
occurred. The defeat of the United States Bank, and the failure of
the pet bank system, had been attended by disorders in the finances,
the ruin of manufactures, a reduction in wages, with all the incident
evils. As these evils were coincident in time with the measures, the
measures were treated as the guilty cause. Beyond question, Mr. Clay's
tariff bill contributed to the troubles.
George Bancroft, the historian, was then collector of the port of
Boston. He took an active part in the canvass in Massachusetts.
On the evening of Saturday previous to the election in Massachusetts,
he spoke at Groton in a building afterwards known as Liberty Hall.*
Mr. Bancroft had a full House, but not an enthusiastic one. Many of
his hearers were Whigs, who came from the country, but not to cheer the
speaker. Moreover, the news of the New York election, then held the
first three days of the week, was not encouraging to Democrats. After
the meeting Mr. Bancroft was taken to the tavern, where a supper was
served to him and to a small number of Democrats. Mr. Bancroft was
excited, and walking the room he said:--"I do believe if General
Harrison is elected, Divine Providence will interfere and prevent his
ever becoming President of the United States." These words of
disappointment seemed prophecy, when the death of Harrison occurred
within thirty days after his inauguration.
In his address Mr. Bancroft spoke with great confidence of the vote of
New York. There were some conscientious Democrats in his audience, who
remembered the remarks, and it was with great reluctance that they gave
him their votes when he was a candidate for Governor in 1844.
The more considerate members of the Democratic Party apprehended defeat
from the opening of the canvass. As early as June 17, the Whigs had
enormous mass meetings at Boston and Bunker Hill. The Democrats were
not inert. The Governor of the State was a Democrat and there were
those who had hopes of his re-election. In set-off of the great
meeting of the 17th of June at Charlestown, the Democrats prepared for
a similar meeting on Lexington Green, July 4. The concourse of people
was large. Governor Morton was present and spoke. I there met William
D. Kelley, who spoke to a portion of the crowd from a wagon. He was
then employed in a jeweler's establishment in Boston.
Groton sent a company of volunteers for the day numbering about
seventy-five men, under command of Captain William Shattuck, then a
sturdy Democrat and afterwards an equally sturdy Republican. Shattuck
was the grandson of Captain Job Shattuck, of Shays' Rebellion. Job
Shattuck had been a captain in the War of the Revolution, and he was
always an earnest patriot. He was also a man of wealth, having large
possessions in land, and being wholly exempt from the pecuniary
distresses that harassed the majority of men, from the close of the
war to the close of the century. Job Shattuck's action was due to his
sympathy for the sufferers and to his sense of justice. In every town
there were traders and small capitalists who had supplied the families
of soldiers who were absent in the service.
Either by mortgage or by executions, the creditors had secured liens
upon the homesteads of the soldiers and from 1783 to 1789 the liens
were enforced. Petitions went up to the General Court for a stay act.
James Bowdoin was Governor. The General Court did not listen to the
appeal. Daniel Shays and others organized forces for the suppression
of the Courts. Shattuck was the leader in the county of Middlesex,
and at the head of his force he broke up the Court at Concord. Finally
he was arrested. Major Woods, who had been an officer in the war, was
in command of the Government forces. Shattuck was secreted at the
house of one Gregg, who lived near where the house of John Gilson now
stands. The season was winter. It was believed that Gregg betrayed
Shattuck. When Shattuck discovered his peril, he fled and made his
way toward the Nashua River, which was then frozen. His pursuers
followed, but at unequal pace. When he had crossed the river, he saw
that the three men in sight were widely separated from each other.
Shattuck turned, and for a time he became the pursuer. The first man
ran, then the second, but finally Shattuck fell on the ice, with
sword in hand. His pursuers seized him. Upon his refusal to surrender
his sword, they cut the cords of his hand, and wounded him in the leg.
He was tried, sentenced to be hanged, and confined in the jail at
Concord.
The election of 1786 turned upon the questions at issue, and especially
upon the execution of the persons under sentence. Bowdoin was the
candidate of the "Law-and-Order Party," and John Hancock was nominated
by the friends of the convicts. Hancock was elected by a vote of about
nineteen thousand against less than six thousand for Bowdoin. The
convicts were pardoned, and a stay law was passed. The demand of the
Shays men was reasonable, and the Government was guilty of a criminal
error in resisting it.
The Shays Rebellion was beneficial to Massachusetts, and it contributed
to the argument in favor of the Constitution of the United States.
The town of Groton continued in the control of Shattuck and his friends
for many years after the suppression of the Rebellion. During that
period he was drawn as a juror. When his name was called the judge
repeated it, and said, "Job Shattuck! He can't sit on the jury in this
Court." As Shattuck came out of the seat limping he said: "I have
broken up one Court here, and things won't be right, until I break up
another."
Something of the spirit of Job Shattuck has been exhibited in the
larger portion of his numerous descendants. They have been devoted to
liberty and just in their dealings. These two qualities were
conspicuous in his grandson, Captain William Shattuck.
I took part in the canvass of 1840 and made speeches in Groton and in
several of the towns in the vicinity. I was also the candidate of the
Democratic Party for a seat in the House of Representatives. There was
no opposition for the nomination, although there were many Democrats
who thought my defection the preceding year had prevented the election
of the Democratic candidates. My temperance opinions were offensive to
many, if not to a majority of the party. On the other hand there were
a number of young members of the Whig Party whose votes I could
command. As a final fact, the political feeling was then so strong
that all considerations yielded to the chances and hopes of success.
My opponent, and the successful candidate, was Mr. John Boynton,
afterward, and for a single year, a member of the senate. He was a
native of the town, a blacksmith by trade, and the son of a blacksmith.
He was a man of quiet ways, upright, and known to every voter. He had
been in the office of town clerk for many years, he had been kind to
everyone, and he had no enemies. Boynton was elected, but by a
moderate majority. But for the excitement of the Presidential
election, the contest would have been very close.
The death of General Harrison and the elevation of John Tyler to the
Presidency wrought a great change in the fortunes of the Whig Party.
Soon after the assembling of Congress at the extra session, called by
President Harrison, a bill for a Fiscal Bank was passed by the two
Houses, and vetoed by President Tyler. The veto message was so framed
as to encourage the Whig leaders to pass a second bill in a form
designed to avoid the objections of the President.
In the discussion upon the veto of the first bill, Mr. Clay assailed
the President in such terms that a reconciliation was impossible. From
that moment it was the purpose of the President to co-operate with the
Democratic Party. A second bill was passed. That was also vetoed by
the President. Early in September all the members of the Cabinet
resigned except Mr. Webster. The outgoing members gave reasons to the
public, and Mr. Webster gave reasons for not going. Caleb Cushing,
Henry A. Wise, and a few other Whigs, called the Omnibus Party chose
their part with Webster and Tyler. The Whig Party was divided,
hopelessly.
Previous to the division, a bill had passed, which had been approved by
the President, for the repeal of the Independent Treasury System. The
ardor of its enemies was such that no substitute was provided. The
expectation was that a Fiscal Bank, or Fiscal Agent, would be created.
The failure of the bank bills left the Government without any lawful
system of finance. The pet bank system was restored, in fact. The
rupture in the Whig Party contributed to its defeat in Massachusetts
at the election in 1842, but the party was so compact in 1841 that its
triumph was assured. Mr. Webster defended his course, and with few
exceptions his conduct was either approved or tolerated in
Massachusetts.
[* It was then an unfinished building and stood where the Willow Dale
road connects with Hollis Street. The building had been erected by a
body of people who advocated the union of all the churches. They
called themselves Unionists. Their leader was the Rev. Silas Hawley.
He was a vigorous thinker, a close reasoner, and he displayed great
knowledge of the Bible. His following became considerable. The
excitement extended to the neighboring towns and for a time serious
inroads were made upon the churches of the village.
The no-creed doctrine was accepted by some who never believed in any
creed, and by others who had believed in creeds that they then thought
were false. In the year 1838, Hawley convened a "World's Convention"
at Liberty Hall, called by the wicked "Polliwog Chapel," to consider
the subject of uniting all the churches in one church without a creed.
One afternoon early in the week of the session, I saw three men walking
on the street towards Liberty Hall, with knapsacks buckled on their
backs. One of these was Theodore Parker, one George Ripley, and the
third, I think, was Charles A. Dana. In this I may be in error.
Parker told me in after years when he had a wide-spread reputation,
that his first public speech was made in that convention.]
X
MASSACHUSETTS MEN IN THE FORTIES
In 1841 I was again a candidate for the House, and I was elected by the
meager majority of one vote. As a member for the year 1842 I made the
acquaintance of many persons, some of whom became distinguished in
state and national politics. The leading members on the Democratic
side were Samuel C. Allen of Northfield; Nathaniel Hinckley of
Barnstable; Seth Whitmarsh, of Seekonk; Seth J. Thomas, Richard
Frothingham of Charlestown; and James Russell, of West Cambridge.
Allen was a son of the Samuel C. Allen who had been a member of
Congress, a member of the old Republican Party of Jefferson, and the
author of the saying: "Associated wealth is the dynasty of modern
states." Another son was Elisha Allen, who was then a member of
Congress from Maine, elected in 1840. He was afterwards our
Commissioner to the Sandwich Islands, and subsequently he was Minister
from the Islands to the United States.
Samuel C. Allen, Jr., was a vigorous, incisive debater. His speeches
were brief, direct, and disagreeable to his opponents. He followed Mr.
Webster's advice to the citizens of Boston--he "made no long orations"
and in those days, he "drank no strong potations."
Thomas was an energetic, capable man, a ready debater, although of
limited resources in learning. Whitmarsh was an unlearned country
leader, whose speeches were better adapted to a neighborhood gathering
of political supporters, than to the deliberations of an assembly
charged with a share in the government of a state. Hinckley was an
original thinker, with a hobby. His purpose was to secure the
abolition of the rule which excluded from the witness-stand those who
did not believe in a personal God. This he accomplished, and by the
aid of the arguments that are formulated in Stuart Mill's Treatise on
Liberty, but they are not there more clearly presented by Mill than
they had been presented by Hinckley in the debates of 1842 and 1843 in
the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Hinckley was a bore, but
the object was accomplished through his agency. Since that time such
parties have been permitted to testify, and the day should come
speedily when the laws should be so changed as to allow the husband
and wife to testify in all cases where they happen to be jointly
interested or opposed to each other.
In judicial investigations, all who know anything should be permitted
to speak, and of their credibility the court and the jury should judge.
No one should be kept from the witness-stand upon the ground of
interest or feeling. Interest in a party or a cause may be a
temptation to perjury. In a majority of contests, however, the truth
will be told voluntarily even by interested or infamous persons, and in
cases where the witness indulges in falsehood the skill of attorneys
and the judgment of the court will enable the jury to reach a correct
conclusion.
Frothingham was a student, a fair speaker, but destitute of the
qualities of an orator and too timid for leadership. A parliamentary
leader may, or may not, be a leader of opinion. Mr. Clay was both.
Mr. Webster was a leader in opinion, and whatever leadership was
accorded to him in the Senate of the United States was due to the
recognized fact that he represented a constituency of opinion larger
than his constituency as a senator. In the case of Mr. Sumner that was
more conspicuously true. As a mere parliamentary leader, his standing
was low. He was not fertile in resources; he was not ready in debate;
his arguments rested upon authorities; and these he could not always
command in season for the emergency. But it was admitted that he
either represented a great body of American citizens in opinion, or
that a great body of American citizens would accept his opinions
whenever he made them known.
In competition with the leaders of the Democratic Party of the
Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1842 it was not a hard task
to acquire a fair standing, but in truth I never thought much of the
results of my labors as they might affect my standing.
The Whig side of the House was at once more able and more numerous.
The city of Boston was a Whig city by a large majority. Its members,
about forty, were chosen on one ticket. The list was prepared by the
city committee, and each year some young lawyers, merchants, and
tradesmen, or mechanics, were brought forward. The vacancies that
occurred enabled the committee to compliment a retired merchant, or
successful mechanic, with a seat in the House. The attendance of
members was not enforced, and it was quite irregular. A full House
consisted of about three hundred and fifty members, but sixty was a
quorum. It was common for merchants and lawyers to call at the House,
look at the orders of the day, and then go to business. In an exigency
they were sent for and brought in to vote.
The House was not a place for luxurious ease. The members sat on long
seats without cushions, having only a narrow shelf on the back of the
seat next in front on which with care a book might be laid or a
memorandum written. A drawer under the seat for the documents
constituted a member's outfit. There were four wood fires--one in each
corner of the great hall. Members sat in their overcoats and hats, and
in one of the rules it was declared that when "a member rises to speak,
he shall take off his hat and address the speaker."
Boston sent John C. Gray, John C. Park, Charles Francis Adams, George
T. Bigelow (afterwards Chief Justice of the State), Edmund Dwight,
Charles P. Curtis, George T. Curtis, John G. Palfrey and others who
were men of mark.
From other parts of the State there were Alvah Crocker, of Fitchburg;
Henry Wilson, of Natick; Thomas Kinnicutt and Benjamin F. Thomas, of
Worcester; John P. Robinson and Daniel S. Richardson, of Lowell;
Samuel H. Walley, Jr., of Roxbury, and others.
Mr. Gray was the son of William Gray, the leading merchant of Boston at
the close of the last century. Mr. Gray was kept in the House for many
years. He was familiar with the rules and usages, and his influence
within certain limits was considerable. His integrity was undisputed.
Nobody suspected him of personal interests in anything. As chairman of
the Committee on Finance, he guided the expenditures of the State with
economy and rigid justice. As a speaker his powers were limited to a
statement of the facts bearing upon the case. To argument in any high
sense he did not aspire.
John C. Park was a good talker. His resources were at his command.
His style was agreeable, his argument clear, his positions reasonable,
and yet his influence was extremely limited. His experience as a
lawyer was the same, substantially. He was not capable of carrying the
mind of the hearer to conclusions from which there was no escape.
Of the Whig members, Charles Francis Adams was the one person of most
note--due to his family and name. He was then thirty-five years of
age. He was born into a family of culture, and from the first he
enjoyed every advantage that could be derived from books and from the
conversation of persons of superior intelligence.
If we include the earliest period of life, the majority of mankind
acquire a larger share of knowledge from conversation than from
reading or observation. Mr. Adams had had the best opportunities for
development and improvement from each and all of the three great
sources of knowledge. With all these advantages he could not have
been included in the first ten on the Whig side of the House. His
style of speaking was at once nervous and oracular. His voice and
manner were not agreeable, and he had a peculiar violent jerk of the
head, as though he would separate it from his body, whenever he became
excited or bestowed special emphasis upon a remark. John Quincy Adams
had the same peculiarity which I had observed in 1839 in his
controversy for the right of petition. In political information Mr.
Adams was the best instructed man in the House.
In those days the slavery question in some form was the topic of debate
and of resolves by the two Houses. Among these the right of petition
and the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia were the most
conspicuous. In these debates and proceedings Mr. Adams was the
leader. When he became a member of the Thirty-sixth Congress and was
appointed upon the committee of thirty-three, he accepted a surrender
to the slave power, which would have given to slavery a perpetual lease
of existence, if institutions and constitutions could have preserved
it. The surrender to slavery, had it been accepted, would have
burdened a race with perpetual servitude and consigned the Republic to
lasting disgrace. It is to be said, however, that Mr. Adams but
yielded to a public sentiment that was controlling in the city of
Washington in the winter of 1860-61, and which was then formidable in
all parts of the country. The concession or surrender was accepted by
many Republicans, including Mr. Corwin of Ohio who was chairman of the
committee of thirty-three.
From 1840 to 1850 I was a member of the Legislature for seven years. A
large body of the people led by Robert Rantoul, Jr., William Lloyd
Garrison and Wendell Phillips were in favor of the abolition of capital
punishment. Many of the clergy, especially of the orthodox clergy,
opposed the change, and for support quoted the laws of Moses. Sermons
were preached from the text: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall
his blood be shed." If this text is treated as a philosophical
statement, based upon human nature, that those who resort to blood to
avenge their wrongs will get a like return, then the proposition has
wisdom in it; but it is the essence of a bloody code if it mean that
either the State or the individual sufferer should take a human life
either for revenge, punishment, or example.
At a session in the Forties the House was made indignant one morning by
the introduction of a petition by Mr. Tolman, of Worcester, asking that
the clergy who approved of capital punishment should be appointed
hangman. A motion was made to reject the petition without reference.
I interposed and called attention to the similarity between the
position the House was thus taking and the position occupied by the
National House of Representatives in regard to petitions upon the
subject of slavery. The suggestion had no weight with the House. The
petition was rejected without a reference.
The next morning the messenger said Mr. Garrison wished to see me in
the lobby. I found Mr. Garrison, Wendell Phillips and William Jackson
with bundles of petitions of the kind presented by Mr. Tolman. They
assumed that as I had advocated the reference of the Tolman petition I
would present others of a like character. I said, "Gentlemen, when
petitions are presented by a member upon his personal responsibility I
shall always favor a reference, but as to the presentation of
petitions, I occupy a different position. I must judge of the wisdom
of the prayer. In this case I must decline to take any responsibility."
The petitions were presented by Mr. Tolman and the House retreated from
the awkward position.
George T. Bigelow was one of the ablest, if not the very ablest, of the
Whig leaders. His style of speech was plain, direct, and free from
partisan feeling. His statements were usually within the limits of the
facts and authorities. His temper was even and his judgment was free
from feeling. He possessed those qualities which made him an
acceptable judge of the Court of Common Pleas, and afterwards, when he
became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, gave him a conspicuous and
almost eminent position as jurist.
George T. Curtis was fastidious, and sometimes he was supercilious, in
his speeches to the House. His influence was exceedingly limited, and
he carried on a constant but useless struggle in the hope of extending
it.
Samuel H. Walley, Jr., of Roxbury, was for a time, chairman of the
Committee on Finance, and one whose integrity and competence were never
doubted by anyone. The revenues and expenditure of the State were
then insignificant, relatively, in amount, but the people were poor as
compared with their condition in 1880 and subsequently. Every
appropriation was canvassed in every shop and on every farm. Mr.
Walley maintained a strict economy and the expenses of the State were
kept at the lowest point consistent with the wise administration of
affairs.
Nevertheless the Democratic Party, acting in error, attacked the
expenses, discussed the items in the canvass of 1842, and when they
came to power in 1843 they made serious reductions, especially in the
matter of salaries of public officers, and all, as I now think,
unwisely.
In the sessions of 1842 and 1843 there came from the town of Woburn,
Nathaniel A. Richardson. When elected he was only twenty-one years of
age. His election was due to the local fame he had acquired as a
speaker in the Lyceum of the town. His career was brief. Whether he
had in him the elements of success cannot now be known, but it was
manifest that he did not get beyond words in his speeches.
His speeches were lacking in information and his powers of argument
were weak and limited. His most noted speech was in support of a
resolution in favor of refunding to General Jackson the fine of one
thousand dollars that had been imposed upon him by a New Orleans judge.
Richardson's opening sentence was this: "I rise, Mr. Speaker, and throw
myself into the crackling embers of this debate,"--from which, in the
judgment of the House, he never emerged.
The Lyceum, as it existed from 1840 to 1850, has disappeared, and to
the loss of young men who may be called to take part in public affairs.
In many cases, however, it led to the development of a style of
speaking that was not adapted to political discussion or to the
profession of the law. Speaking and writing should be pursued at the
same time, and study is an essential condition of success. In public
assemblies, even in those that are composed of selected persons, there
is always an opportunity for a well-trained man, who is also carefully
and fully informed upon the subject under debate, to exert an influence
and not infrequently he may succeed in securing the acceptance of his
opinions.
But study alone will not make a good or even an acceptable speaker,
unless there is added also a period of careful practice. There are
many men of learning whose faculty for speaking is so limited that
their awkwardness is more conspicuous than their knowledge. The Lyceum
may be made a school of practice. The business should not be limited
to topics that do not excite feeling. The contests of the world rest
largely upon feeling, often degenerating into mere passion. Those
who are to take part in such contests should learn at an early period
of life to control their feelings and passions. Such benign results
can be reached only by experience. Let the debates of the Lyceum deal
with questions of living interest, and those who take part in such
contests will learn to control their feelings and thus prepare
themselves for the business of life.
John P. Robinson, of Lowell, was the best equipped member of the House
of 1842. He was then in the prime of life in years, but already
somewhat impaired. He was a thoroughly educated man, a trained lawyer,
of considerable experience in country practice--a practice which
renders the members of the profession more acute than the practice of
cities. In the country the controversies are about small matters
relatively, but the clients are deeply interested, the neighborhood
is enlisted on one side or the other, and the attendance at court of
the friends of the parties is often large. The counsel is tried quite
as rigorously and critically as is the case. Such was the condition of
things previous to 1848. Robinson was not only a good English scholar,
but he was devoted to the classics, and especially to the Greek
classics and history. Afterwards he became a resident of Athens where
he lived for several years. He was a good speaker in a high sense of
the phrase. In the sessions of 1842 and 1843 the system of
corporations was in controversy. The Democrats were in opposition
generally. The Whig Party favored the system. In the session of 1842
or 1843 citizens of Nantucket presented a petition for an Act of
Incorporation as a "Camel Company." The town had been the chief port
in the world for the whale-fishery business. Its insular position
rendered it necessary to obtain supplies from the mainland and to
transport the products of the fishery to the mainland. The fact that
there was a bar across the harbor, which made it impossible to bring in
vessels of the size of those engaged in the fishery was fast depriving
it of its supremacy. New London was already a rival.
The scheme for relief was to build what was called "camels." They were
vessels capable of receiving a whale-ship and floating it over the bar.
They were to be made broad, of shallow draught, with air-tight
compartments. These machines were to be taken outside the bar; the
compartments were to be filled with water and the camels sunk. The
whale ship was then to be floated over the camel and the water was then
to be pumped out of the compartments when the camel would rise with the
ship on its back and carry the whaler into the harbor.
The scheme seemed a wild one, but opinions were controlled by party
feeling. The bill passed, the camels were built, and the scheme failed
as a practical measure. Nantucket was doomed as a trading and
commercial town. As a watering place it had a future. In one of the
debates upon corporations Robinson took part, perhaps upon the
Nantucket "camel" question, and made the best speech to which I have
ever listened in defense of the system.
The corporation system has yielded larger returns to Massachusetts
than she has received from any other feature of her domestic policy,
excepting only her system of public instruction.
Robinson lived, probably, on the verge of insanity, to which end he
came finally. When a member of the House, he was restless, almost
constantly walking in the area or through the aisles, running his
hands through his long black hair, engaged apparently in meditation
upon topics outside of the business of the House.