3. The reduction of the poll tax.

On each of the last two measures I made a speech which was reported in

the Boston _Post_. Upon the revival of the question concerning the

taxation of mortgaged real estate, my opinions were not as firmly in

its favor as they had been in 1843, when I originated and advocated the

measure.

The assessment of a poll-tax as a prerequisite to the exercise of the

right to vote is a relic of the property qualification and it ought not

any longer to find a place in the policy of free States. As persons

without accumulated property enjoy the benefits of free schools, the

use of roads and bridges, and the protection of the laws, there is a

justification for the assessment of a capitation tax, but the right to

vote should not be dependent upon its payment.

XI

THE ELECTION OF 1842, AND THE DORR REBELLION

The election of 1842 was contested by the Democratic Party and

successfully, upon the charge that the Whig Administration had unwisely

and illegally aided the "law and order party" in Rhode Island in the

controversy with Thomas W. Dorr, the leader of the party engaged in an

attempt to change the form of government in that State. At that time

the people of Rhode Island were living under the charter granted by

Charles II. Its provisions were illiberal in the opinion of the

majority of the people of Rhode Island, but the majority of the voters

under the Charter thought otherwise. Mr. Dorr represented the popular

opinion, and Governor King represented the dominant class. Governor

King was a Whig and, naturally the Whig Party of Massachusetts

sympathized with him. Gen. H. A. S. Dearborn, who had been an officer

in the War of 1812, was then Adjutant-General of Massachusetts. In his

haste to aid Governor King, he loaned to him quite a quantity of

muskets from the State Arsenal. This act caused great criticism and

contributed to the overthrow of the Whig Party in 1842, if it did not

in fact cause it. Dorr had organized a government, under a

constitution which had been ratified by such of the people of Rhode

Island as chose to vote upon it. The Dorr legislature assembled, a

military force was organized, and the State seemed to be on the eve of

a bloody contest.

Governor King appealed for aid to President Tyler. The President

recognized Governor King as the head of the lawful government of the

State, and although the aid was not granted, the Dorr Rebellion came

to an end. The courts followed the political department of the

government, and the attempt of Dorr and his associates was a failure in

fact and in law. The failure was followed, however, by the adoption of

a constitution from which the most objectionable features of the

Charter were removed.

In 1842 Massachusetts was living under the majority system. The

Abolitionists placed a candidate in nomination. As a consequence there

was no election of Governor by the people. The Democrats succeeded in

obtaining a majority of the Senators elected. The House was about

equally divided between the Whigs and the Democrats, and the balance of

power was in the hands of four Abolitionists, who were led by one Lewis

Williams of Easton. Williams was a sort of personage for ten or

twelve days, when he disappeared from public view.

In the contest for Speaker the Democrats supported Seth J. Thomas, of

Charlestown, and the Whigs nominated Thomas Kinnicutt, of Worcester,

who had held the office of Speaker in 1842. The Abolitionists voted

for Williams. The struggle continued for two days without a result.

On the third day Mr. Kinnicutt withdrew his name, and his friends

presented the name of Daniel P. King, of Danvers.

Mr. Thomas made a short speech in which he said that he was in the

hands of his friends. The Democrats attempted to change front, and

to secure the election of Williams. The attempt failed, and Mr. King

was elected. Mr. King was a man of moderate abilities, but he had made

himself acceptable to the voting element of the Anti-Slavery Party.

His election as Speaker, was followed by his election to the Twenty-

eighth Congress. The southern part of Essex County had been

represented by Leverett Saltonstall, of Salem. He was the candidate of

the Whig Party in 1842, but the votes of the Anti-Slavery men prevented

his election. Mr. Saltonstall was a man of superior abilities and a

perfect gentleman in bearing and conduct. He had been a Federalist

and my impressions were adverse to him. In 1844 he came to the

Massachusetts House of Representatives. He was appointed Chairman of

the Judiciary Committee of which I was a member. All my prejudices

were removed, and I came to admire his qualities as a man, and his

capacity as a legislator.

Upon the organization of the House of Representatives, in 1843, the

two Houses in convention, proceeded to the election of a Governor,

Lieutenant Governor, Council, and heads of the several administrative

bureaus. Marcus Morton, of Taunton, was elected Governor, Dr. Childs

of Pittsfield (Henry H.) was chosen Lieutenant Governor, and of the

subordinate officers all were Democrats.

The nomination of John A. Bolles, for the office of Secretary of the

Commonwealth, gave rise to a singular episode in politics. John P.

Bigelow, of Boston, had held that office for several years. He had

performed the duties acceptably, and there was a difference of opinion

in the Democratic Party as to the expediency of a change. The caucus

decided to make a change. Upon the announcement of the nomination of

Mr. Bolles, Nathaniel Wood, who had been elected a Senator in

convention, from the county of Worcester, left the caucus and the next

day he resigned his seat in the Senate. His peculiarities did not end

with this act. In 1850 he was elected to the House for the year 1851,

as a Coalition Democrat. He voted for Sumner, but he was greatly

annoyed by the charge of the Whigs that there had been an unholy

coalition between a portion of the Democratic Party and the Free-

soilers. In replying to the allegations, he made the counter charge

that there was a coalition between the Whigs and the "old hunker

Democrats" as they were called. They were, in fact, the Democrats

who would not vote for Sumner. A member called upon Wood for the

evidence. This question he had not anticipated, and after staggering

for a reply, he said--"I have seen them whispering together." As legal

evidence the answer was faulty, but in a moral point of view it was not

without force.

Governor Morton was a man of solid qualities. He had been upon the

bench of the Supreme Judicial Court of the State for many years and in

the fellowship of such jurists as Chief Justice Shaw, Judges Wilde,

Putnam, Hubbard, and others, and he had borne himself with credit and

perhaps even with distinction. He was a favorite of the Democratic

Party and for many years he had been its candidate for Governor, and

always without opposition. His election in 1839 was due to the public

dissatisfaction with the Temperance Act passed in 1838 and known as the

Fifteen-Gallon Law. He became Governor in the year 1840, but as his

Council and the two Houses were controlled by the Whig Party neither

his friends nor his enemies had any means of testing his quality as a

political administrator. In 1843, however, the circumstances were

different. His political friends were in power in every branch of the

government. Party expectations were not realized, and Governor

Morton's administration was not popular with the party generally.

Early in the session, Benjamin F. Hallett, a member of the Executive

Council, became alienated, and the spirit of harmony was banished from

that branch of the government.

As the election had been carried upon the Dorr Rebellion, it was

thought expedient to recognize the event by a dinner in Faneuil Hall.

Dorr was then an exile, and the guest of Henry Hubbard, Democratic

Governor of New Hampshire. Dorr was invited to the dinner, but he did

not attend. It was asserted that he was given to understand that

Governor Morton would by placed in an unpleasant position if Dorr were

to come to Massachusetts from New Hampshire, and at the same time, a

requisition should come from the Governor of Rhode Island for his

delivery to answer in that State to an indictment for treason. The

incident gave rise to a good deal of feeling, and finally, Governor

Morton did not attend the banquet. Thus it happened that neither of

the chiefs in whose honor the banquet was arranged, was in attendance

on the occasion.

I was appointed Chairman of the Committee on Invitations. These were

sent to leading Democrats in all parts of the country and especially

were they sent to distinguished members of Congress. The answers

contained only the most delicate and remote allusions to the object

of the festival. The letters were turned over to the officers of the

meeting. For myself, I retained only the envelope of the letter of Mr.

Calhoun with his frank upon the right-hand corner. I had not

previously seen a letter envelope.

Governor Morton's administration was a failure, and at the election in

1843 he was defeated by Governor Briggs. The State was a Whig State,

and a Democratic administration for two successive years was an

impossibility. My impressions of Governor Morton underwent several

changes. Previous to his election in 1843 I had regarded him as one

of the able men of the country. His lack of courage, and his apparent

desertion of his friends in 1843 produced an unfavorable impression

upon me both of his character and of his abilities. As to his

character, my impressions remain. Of his abilities I can have no doubt.

With some exceptions the policy and measures of the Democratic Party

in 1843 were crude and unwise. They demanded changes under the name

of reforms. The chief measure was a bill to reduce the salaries of

public officers, including the salaries of the governor, the lieutenant

governor, and the judges of all the courts. The Whigs resisted the

passage of the bill, upon the ground of its injustice to the persons in

office, and of its unconstitutionality in respect to the salaries of

the judges of the Supreme Judicial Court.

The bill became a law, and upon the return of the Whigs to power in

1844, the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Judicial Court were

restored, and they were reimbursed for the loss sustained by the act

of 1843. At the session of 1844 I made an argument upon the

constitutional question, but it was of no avail. As I have not read

my own argument since 1844 I am not prepared to say that it is

unsound.

By the election of 1843 Governor Morton was defeated. George N. Briggs

who had been for many years a member of Congress from the Berkshire

District, was elected Governor, and with him a majority of his

political friends in the two Houses. Governor Briggs held the office

until January 1851. He was a man of fair, natural abilities, with a

taste for politics. He had risen from a low condition of life but he

was entirely free from the vices of the world. As a rigid temperance

man and opponent to slavery, the middle classes of the State became

his supporters without argument. He held the office for seven years,

but he was defeated by the coalition of 1850.

Among the leading members of the House in 1844, was Joseph Bell, then

recently from Hanover, N. H. He was named second on the Judiciary

Committee, and to him was committed the conduct of the bill to restore

the judges' salaries. He was a man of massive frame and of great vigor

of body. His voice was loud, but it lacked those elements that come

from cultivation. He had accumulated considerable wealth in the

country and he had come to Boston for ease and comfort in age. His

career was brief as he lived only a few years thereafter.

Of the affirmative measures of the Legislature of 1844 the most

important perhaps was the statute requiring the registration of births,

marriages, and deaths. Previous to that time there was no

authoritative records of births, marriages, or deaths. The books of

town clerks, the records of clergymen, and the entries in family Bibles

were the sources of information. The information was never complete,

and often that obtained was inaccurate. The promoters of the measure

were Dr. Edward Jarvis of Dorchester and Lemuel Shattuck of Concord.

They were both enthusiastic upon the subject and when they had created

in me an interest, they furnished me with books and documents including

reports of the English and French systems. The petition or memorial

was referred to the Judiciary Committee and it fell to me to prepare

the bill. This I did with the aid, and largely under the direction, of

Shattuck and Jarvis. Then for the first time I had practical use for

the small stock of knowledge that I had acquired of the French

language. Previous to my election to the Legislature I had purchased a

series of books on the French language, known as "French Without a

Teacher." My study of the language had been limited to fragments of

time that I could command while engaged in the business of the store.

Upon my election to the Legislature I made the acquaintance of Count

La Porte who had been a professor of the French language at Cambridge.

I took lessons from him during the sessions of 1842 and 1843.

In the year 1844 I received from the Democratic Party the nomination

for a seat in Congress. It was a barren honor. The district was in

the hands of the Whig Party by a respectable majority. In the canvass

of 1842 the Whigs had nominated John P. Robinson. He was not an

acceptable candidate, and the candidate of the Abolitionists received

a large vote. The Democratic candidate was Joseph W. Mansur of

Lowell. In the first contest he was near an election by a majority.

At the second trial his friends had high hopes of success. At the

close of the contest it was found that he had lost votes. His

friends charged that his loss was due to the secret opposition of

Josiah G. Abbott, who was a rival to Mansur, in the city of Lowell.

In 1844 Mansur retired from the field and Abbott became a candidate.

Mansur's friends were opposed to the nomination of Abbott, and by their

action the nomination came to me. The district was then hopeless. In

1842 the Dorr question was uppermost in the public mind. That had lost

its power. In a Presidential contest Massachusetts was Whig by an

immense majority. National questions were all-controlling. I was

renominated for Congress in 1846 and 1848. I canvassed the district

and made speeches in the principal places but as to success I never

had any hope.

The 17th day of June, 1843, Mr. Webster delivered the address upon the

completion of the Bunker Hill Monument. President Tyler and some

members of his Cabinet were present. The concourse of people was so

great that experts were justified in estimating the number at one

hundred thousand. This was the third opportunity that I had had to

hear Mr. Webster speak. The first was in the Senate in January, 1839.

A few days later I was present in the gallery of the Supreme Court

room, and heard the argument in the case of Smith _v._ Richards.

Mr. Webster appeared for Smith and Mr. Crittenden for Richards. The

subject was the sale of a gold mine in which fraud was alleged by

Smith. The judgment was for Richards, three judges dissenting. For

the first time I heard the word "denizen," used by Mr. Crittenden.

The election of 1844 was disastrous to the Democratic Party of

Massachusetts. George Bancroft was its candidate for Governor. He was

an enthusiastic leader, but not a popular candidate. I recall the

circumstance that I met him during the canvass at the head of Hanover

Street, Boston, when some news favorable to Polk had been received. He

had a small cane in his hand which he whirled in the air, and shouted:

"Glorious! Glorious!" until we were surrounded by a crowd of men and

boys.

At the November election I was defeated by a majority of seventy-six, I

think, in a vote of about four hundred. I had some political sins of

my own that intensified the hostility of my Whig neighbors, and many

Democrats voted the Whig ticket.

The act requiring the treasurers and cashiers of corporations to return

the names of stockholders to the assessors of the cities and towns

where the stockholders resided with the amount of stock held by each,

could not be overlooked by those who had suffered. The recollection of

my part in the business was still fresh in the minds of the victims.

Next the scheme for the annexation of Texas was treated as a Democratic

measure, and every Democrat suffered for the sin of the party. As to

myself, I had spoken in the House against the scheme. I was a member

of the Committee, of which Charles F. Adams was Chairman, that had made

reports adverse to the measure. The circumstances, however, availed

nothing. Mr. Clay's popularity was great, notwithstanding the

indifference or concealed hostility of Mr. Webster. Indeed, Mr.

Webster's popularity had suffered from his connection with John Tyler.

Mr. Polk had no strength in Massachusetts. He was the nominee of the

Democratic Party, nothing more. Before the day of election came in

Massachusetts the election of Polk was known and conceded. New York

voted the Monday preceding the Monday of the election in Massachusetts,

and the voting was not over until Wednesday night. There was a mass

meeting at Pepperell, Thursday afternoon, at which Benjamin F. Hallett

and myself spoke. Mr. Hallett was very confident of Polk's election.

I was in doubt.

That evening I spoke at Chelmsford, and upon my return to Groton, I

found several Whigs at Hoar's tavern, who were congratulating

themselves upon a Whig victory in New York. Their authority was the

Boston _Atlas,_ an authority not universally accepted at that time. As

I passed through the bar-room, after leaving my horse at the stable, I

was rallied, and the assertion was made with great confidence that Mr.

Clay was elected. I could only say in reply that they had better wait

until they had some other authority for the claim. I went to my house,

however, with many doubts as to the success of Polk.

At that time there was no railway communication between Boston and

Groton. The first intelligence from abroad came from Lowell. My

friends there sent to me a copy of the _Vox Populi,_ printed during the

night, and which contained the truthful returns from New York. At that

time the _Vox Populi_ was not in very good repute, and I thought it

unwise to quote it to anyone. I thrust it into my desk without

mentioning its contents.

Upon the arrival of the stage from Boston, I received a bundle of

papers from my old friend General Staples, which confirmed the news

furnished by the _Vox Populi_. These papers I also thrust into my

desk, and went to the post-office. The outer room was filled with

Whigs--not one Democrat present. The Whigs were still reposing upon

the news printed in the Boston _Atlas,_ but my statement that I had

information more recent and that Polk had carried New York disturbed

their composure.

At length the postmaster, Caleb Butler, opened the slide door, and

passed out a copy of the Boston _Courier_. The receiver opened it.

There were no capitals, no signs of exultation, and without waiting

for the reading of the text, the assembly accepted the fact that Clay

was defeated.

The Whigs of Massachusetts and indeed of the whole country were deeply

grieved by the defeat of Mr. Clay. In many instances his popularity

had ripened into personal friendship. His defeat came to many families

as a real loss. Among the disappointed Whigs who had met at the post-

office that morning was a neighbor and friend of mine, Mr. Aaron

Perkins. In his excitement he said with an oath, "Next Monday we will

give you a whipping." His declaration was verified. Many Democrats

whose names were never disclosed to me voted for the Whig candidate,

Deacon William Livermore, and he was elected by a majority of more than

seventy votes. The next year he was re-elected by a diminished

majority.

In 1846 the Whig Party nominated a new candidate, Edwin Coburn, a young

lawyer then in the office of George F. Farley, with whom Coburn had

studied his profession. Coburn was a man of good parts intellectually,

a fair debater, and an intimate friend of mine. The town was canvassed

thoroughly. Two ballots were taken during the first day. I received

one hundred and ninety-six votes, and Coburn received one hundred and

ninety-six votes at each ballot, and there were four scattering votes.

The meeting was adjourned to the succeeding day. That night there was

a rally of the absentees. The Democrats sent to Lowell, Manchester,

N. H., and Boston, there being an absentee at each of those places.

Upon the first ballot the second day I received two hundred and eleven

votes and Coburn two hundred and seven. Of scattering votes there were

none. From that time forward the town was Democratic. In all the

previous contests I had contended against a Whig majority. My success

had been due to the friendship of a number of Whig families, to my

strength among the young men, and to a more perfect organization of the

Democratic Party. The annexation of Texas, and the Mexican War, had

alienated the support of some, and to this fact was due the closeness

of the contest of 1846.

XII

THE LEGISLATURE OF 1847

At the meeting of the Legislature of 1847, some new members appeared.

Caleb Cushing came from Newburyport, and Fletcher Webster, and J.

Lothrop Motley from Boston. The Democrats of Boston and vicinity were

then engaged in raising and equipping a regiment for Mexico. Cushing

was Colonel of the regiment and Edward Webster, a brother of Fletcher,

was the Captain of one of the companies. On the first day of the

session Cushing introduced an order to appropriate twenty thousand

dollars to aid in equipping the regiment for service. The order was

referred to a special committee of which Cushing was made chairman.

I was put upon the committee and the majority were friends of the

measure.

Upon the report a discussion sprang up which was partisan with a few

exceptions. Conspicuous among the exceptions was Fletcher Webster.

Webster supported the appropriation in a speech of signal ability. His

drawback was the disposition to compare him with his father. Fletcher

was aware of this, and I recollect his remarks upon the subject at an

accidental meeting on Warren Bridge. Fletcher was rather undersize,

and he spoke of that fact as a hindrance to success in life, in

addition to the disposition to compare him with his father. In his

speech he made a remark not unlike the style of his father. Addressing

himself to his Whig friends, he said that they would be required to

explain their opposition to the measure, and added, "and explanations

are always disagreeable." My acquaintance with Fletcher Webster, was

the introduction to a limited acquaintance with his father, and it led

to an act on the part of Mr. Webster which was of signal importance to

me.

Mr. Cushing remained in the House until the loss of the appropriation,

when he left for Washington. President Polk gave him a commission as a

Brigadier-General, and he left for Mexico.

Motley was chairman of the Committee on Education, and as Chairman he

reported a bill to divide a portion of the proceeds of the Maine lands,

among the three colleges of the State. Theretofore they had been added

to the Common School Fund. As a member of the committee, I opposed the

measure, and the bill was lost. The subject is mentioned in Holmes'

Life of Motley, and a letter of mine is printed therein. I had no idea

at the time that Motley had any feeling on account of his defeat, but

Mr. Hooper informed me that it led him to abandon politics. If so I

may have been the unconscious cause of a success in literature which he

might not have attained in public, political life.

At this session I inaugurated a movement for the reorganization of

Harvard College. The contest was continued in 1848, '49 and '50. In

1851 I was elected Governor and the Legislature, under the lead of

Caleb Cushing, passed a bill by which the overseers of the College were

made elective by the Legislature. It was a compromise measure, and its

immediate results were not favorable to the College. The lobby became

influential in the selection of overseers and unemployed clergymen of

various denominations were active in lobbying for themselves. After

a few years' experience the election of overseers was transferred to

the Alumni, with whom the power still remains. The bill which I

introduced, the reports and arguments which I submitted to the House,

aimed at the reorganization of the corporation and the election of the

corporators by the Legislature.

In the years 1849 and 1850 the town of Concord was represented by the

Hon. Samuel Hoar, and he led in the defence of the College. He was no

ordinary antagonist. First and last I have been brought into

competition with many men of ability, and I have not often met a more

able reasoner. He spoke without notes, his only aid being his pocket

knife which he held in his right hand and dropped by regular processes

into his left hand, where he changed the ends of the knife and then

resumed the automatic process.

My own argument I have not read for many years, but it is not unlikely

that it contains as much ingenuity as can be found in any argument that

I have ever made. The movement attracted a good deal of interest in

the State. The College was in control of the Unitarians exclusively,

and it was far from prosperous. The final change of the Board of

Overseers gave a popular character to the institution, and it was one

of the elements of its recent prosperity. For the moment the managers

of the College were very hostile to me, but in the course of ten years

all feeling had disappeared, and I enjoyed the friendship of Presidents

Sparks, Felton, and Walker.

The College conferred upon me the degree of LL.D. in 1851. That honor

had no significance as it was given to every person who was elected

Governor and that without regard to his learning, attainments, or

services.* Subsequently, however, I was elected a member of the

American Academy of Arts and Sciences by the votes of those who were

controlling the College. In 1861 I was invited to deliver the Phi

Beta Kappa oration, and I was then made a member of the society. Since

the opening of the war I have been at Cambridge on two or three

occasions only, and my present acquaintance with the persons in power

is very limited.

From 1844 to 1850 I received from Governor Briggs several appointments.

In 1845 or '46 the Legislature passed an Act authorizing the

appointment of railway commissioners. Governor Briggs sent me a

commission, which I declined. The Board was never organized, and the

act was soon repealed. I was also appointed a member of a commission

on Boston Harbor. At the time the public were anxious about the fate

of the harbor in consequence of the drainage into it by Charles River,

and numerous minor channels. It was not then understood that all

deposits by drainage could be removed by dredging. The members of the

Commission were Judges Williams, Hopkinson, Cummins, the Hon. Chas.

Hudson and myself. The three judges had then recently lost their

offices by the abolition of the court of common pleas. Mr. Hudson

had then recently left the United States House of Representatives, but

whether voluntarily or upon compulsion I cannot say. He was a

clergyman, a Universalist, but at an early age he had abandoned his

profession for politics. After serving in the Massachusetts House,

Senate and Council, he was elected to Congress from the Worcester

district, for which he sat during four Congresses. He was a man of

solid qualities without genius of any sort. He was distinguished in

Congress as a Protectionist, and his speeches on the tariff question

were widely circulated by the Whig Party. They were filled with

statistics, and like all arguments based on statistics, they were

subject to a good deal of criticism by the advocates of free trade.

The three judges were respectable, clear-headed gentlemen. Of Cummins

the story is told that, when for the first time a plan of land was

introduced in a real-estate case, he refused to consider the document,

saying: "I will not allow a case to be won in my court by diagrams."

Williams had been chief justice of the common pleas court and he was

estimated as the superior among his associates upon the bench. Judge

Hopkinson was from Lowell, where he had been a favorite of the ruling

class in that city. He was a man of moderate ability. The work of the

commission continued through several months, and some of its

recommendations were adopted by the Legislature.

As the charters of all the banks in the State were to expire in 1850 or

1851, in the latter year, I think, the Legislature authorized the

appointment of a board of commissioners for the examination of the

banks. The Governor and Council appointed Solomon Lincoln, of Hingham,

Joseph S. Cabot of Salem, and myself.

Mr. Lincoln was a kind, capable man of considerable learning,

especially in Old Colony history and genealogy. His first question to

bank officers often related to them personally, and when he found a man

who traced his line to the Old Colony, he pressed him with questions

until his whole history was disclosed. Mr. Cabot sometimes anticipated

Mr. Lincoln, by saying at once, when we entered a bank, "Is there

anybody here from the Old Colony?"

Mr. Cabot was a bachelor of fifty, and his ways were often odd, and

occasionally they were disagreeable. He had a custom of never locking

his sleeping-room door. Of this he often boasted. When we were at the

American House, Worcester, Mr. Cabot said upon his appearance in the

morning: "A very queer thing happened to me last night. When I got up

my clothes were missing. At last I opened the door, and there they

were in the hall. I supposed that I had been robbed. But I am all

right," taking his wallet from his pocket. I said: "Have you looked

in your wallet?" He opened it to find that the money had disappeared.

We ventured to suggest that for a bank commissioner, he had not shown

a great amount of shrewdness.

In the years 1849 and 1850 the commission examined all the banks in the

State. Only one was found insolvent, a bank at Pawtucket on the

Rhode Island line. The cashier, named Tillinghast, had been persuaded

by a man named Marchant, of Rhode Island, to loan money without the

knowledge of the officers of the bank. The loan, at the time of the

discovery, amounted to sixty thousand dollars.

Upon the examination it appeared that there was a slight surplus of

funds over the amount required by the statement. We insisted upon

another examination. The cashier then reduced the balance by the

statement that certain notes sent forward for collection had been

discounted. It was impossible, however, to make the two sides of the

account equal each other. At the end of the second day the cashier

confessed the crime, and transferred his private property to the bank.

Marchant did nothing. He came to the Rhode Island edge of the bridge,

where we had some consultations with him, but without any result

advantageous to the bank.

In 1847 I was a member of a joint committee to investigate the subject

of insanity in the State, and to visit asylums in other States, the

object being the erection of a second hospital for the care and

treatment of the insane. At the time the only asylum under the control

of the State was that at Worcester. There was a second at Somerville

for the treatment of private patients. This was under the control of

the Massachusetts General Hospital. The hospital at Worcester was

under the management of Dr. Woodward, and each years for many years the

reports had set it forth as a well organized and well managed

institution. At the beginning of our labors we visited the Worcester

Hospital. I was then ignorant of the treatment of the insane, but I

was shocked by the sight of women in the cells in the basement, who had

no bedding but straw, and some of whom had no clothing whatever.

The committee visited the McLean Asylum at Somerville; the Butler

Hospital, Rhode Island; the Utica and Bloomingdale Asylums, New York;

the Trenton Hospital, the Kirkbride Hospital, and the Philadelphia Alms

House, and in none of these institutions did we find any person naked

or confined in a cell. The furiously insane were dressed, the arms

were tied so as to limit the use of the hands, and the hands were

covered with padded mittens. The Worcester Hospital was the poorest

institution of all. Our chairman, the Rev. Orin S. Fowler, afterwards

a member of Congress, was very indignant, and his report to the

Legislature aroused the State from its delusion in regard to the

Worcester Hospital. We examined many sites for the contemplated new

hospitals, but the Legislature postponed action.

During the year 1847 I was a member of a committee to examine and

report upon the securities held by the State. These securities were

chiefly the property of the Common School Fund, and they had been

derived from the sales of public lands in Maine owned jointly with

that State under the agreement made at the time of the separation.

Among these securities was a mortgage upon the property of Nathaniel

J. Wythe, at Fresh Pond. Mr. Wythe had been a trapper for John Jacob

Astor, and he had published a pamphlet upon the region of the Rocky

Mountains. Elisha H. Allen afterwards our Consul to Honolulu, and then

Chief Justice of Hawaii, and more recently Minister from that country

to the United States, was a member of the committee. Mr. Allen and

myself were at Fresh Pond together and under the lead of Wythe we went

to one of his large ice-houses. The month was August and the men were

engaged in removing ice from the house for loading upon the railway

cars. From the top of the house to the ground floor must have been

sixty feet or more. The cakes of ice were sent down in a run, and by

the side of the run there was a narrow foot track, over which the men

passed. Mr. Wythe with a lantern led in going up the track to the

height where the men were at work. Allen followed and I was behind

Allen. When we had ascended about one third of the way, the men above

sent down a cake of ice that seemed at first view to threaten the

passengers on the side track. Allen stepped back and fell outside the

track and disappeared in the darkness. The men were called and by the

aid of lights Allen was found in a pit about ten or twelve feet in

depth that had been made by removing ice. By the help of a ladder he

was taken out, much frightened, but not injured seriously. Mr. Allen

was the son of Sam. C. Allen of Northfield, formerly a member of

Congress. Mr. Elisha H. Allen was elected to Congress in 1840 from

the Bangor district, State of Maine. He went to Hawaii in 1849 and he

returned in 1851 or 1852. Upon his return I had several interviews

with him as he lived at the Adams House, Boston, for a time, where I

was then living. From him I received the impression that he was

authorized to say to the Secretary of State that the authorities of

Hawaii were prepared to enter upon negotiations for the cession of the

Island to the United States. I understood from Mr. Allen that Mr.

Webster did not look with favor upon the scheme. In later years I

renewed my acquaintance with Mr. Allen. He was a man of quick

perceptions, of much general information, and as a debater in the

Massachusetts House of Representatives his standing was always good.

As to his integrity it was never brought into question.

[* I was elected a member of the American Academy on my birthday, 1857.

J. Lothrop Motley and Charles Francis Adams were elected at the same

time.]

XIII

LEGISLATIVE SESSION OF 1848--FUNERAL OF JOHN QUINCY ADAMS

The chief incident of the Legislative session of 1848 was the funeral

of John Quincy Adams. Mr. Adams died in February, 1848. There were

then twenty-four States in the Union and the House of Representatives

selected one member from each State to accompany the remains of Mr.

Adams to Massachusetts. Of these members I recall Talmadge of New

York; Newell* of New Jersey; Kaufmann of Texas; Morse of Louisiana;

Wentworth of Illinois; Bingham of Michigan; and Holmes of South

Carolina. The Massachusetts Legislature appointed a committee of the

same number to receive the Congressional Committee. Of that committee

I was a member and George T. Bigelow was the chairman. Our first

thought was of a hotel and the entertainment of the Committee.

The feeling in regard to temperance was active and we foresaw that the

doings of the committee would be subject to criticism. Finally,

Bigelow suggested that we should go to the Tremont House and say to the

landlord that we wished him to provide suitable rooms and entertainment

for the Congressional Committee. This we did, and nothing was said

about wines. At the end we found that the bill was a large one, and

that the item of wines was a very important item. It was paid by the

Governor and Council, and as one member of the committee I was ignorant

of the amount. The reporters made vain attempts to ascertain the

facts. A portion of our committee met the Congressional Committee at

Springfield. Many additions had then been made to the twenty-four. At

Worcester, and perhaps at other places, speeches were made to the

Committee by the local authorities and speeches in answer were

delivered by members of the Committee. Mr. Holmes of South Carolina,

was one of the speakers. He was an enthusiastic man, and he was

endowed with a form of popular eloquence quite well adapted to the

occasion.

I was assigned to the charge of Mr. Wentworth of Illinois. His height

was such that he was already known as "Long John." We sat together in

the train for Quincy on the day of the funeral. He was a good natured

man, whose greatness was not altogether in the size of his body. His

talents were far above mediocrity, indeed, nature had endowed him with

powers of a high order, as I had the opportunity to learn when we were

associated in Congress.

Two banquets were given to the Committee, one by the State at the

Tremont House, and one by the City of Boston at the Revere House. The

notable event at the Revere House was the speech of Harrison Gray Otis.

Mr. Otis was then about eighty years of age. He was a well preserved

gentleman, and in his deportment, dress and speech he gave evidence of

culture and refinement. He had been a Federalist and of course he had

been a bitter opponent of Mr. Adams. He seized the occasion to make a

defence of Federalism, and of the Hartford Convention. While Mr. Adams

was President, he had written a pamphlet in vindication of a charge he

had made, in conversation with Mr. Jefferson, that, during the War of

1812 the Federalists of New England, had contemplated a dissolution of

the Union, and the establishment of a northern confederacy. This

charge Mr. Otis denied and he then proceeded at length to vindicate

the character of the old Federal Party. He was a gentleman of

refinement of manners, but as I sat near him at the Revere House

dinner, I overheard enough of his private conversation with Holmes of

South Carolina, to satisfy me that he had a relish for coarse remarks,

if they had in them a flavor of wit or humor.

The old controversy between John Quincy Adams, and the Federalists of

Boston, once saved me, and helped me to escape from a position in

which I found myself by an indiscretion in debate. In 1843 the office

of Attorney-General was abolished, by the active efforts of the

Democrats aided by the passiveness of the Whigs. The Democrats thought

the office unnecessary, the Whigs were content to have it abolished,

that the party might get rid of the incumbent, James T. Austin. At a

subsequent session of the Judiciary Committee, of which George Lunt was

a member, he reported a bill for the establishment of the office. Mr.

Lunt was a poet, a lawyer, and a politician, and without excellence in

either walk. In public life he was destitute of the ability to adapt

himself to his surroundings. In those days the farmers constituted a

majority of the House. They were generally men of intelligence, and

they held about the same relation to the business of the House, that

juries hold to the business of the Courts. They listened to the

arguments, reasoned upon the case, and not infrequently the decision

was made by them. Occasionally they gave a verdict upon a party

question, adverse to the arguments of the leaders of the party in

power. In his opening argument, Mr. Lunt was unwise, to a degree

unusual even for him.

The question he maintained was one which lawyers alone were competent

to understand, and he also maintained that the majority of the House

ought to accept their views. "The question" said he "is _sui generis."_

I was opposed to the bill. At that time Richard Fletcher, then

recently a member of Congress, had been engaged in a controversy with

the Boston _Atlas,_ a leading organ of the Whig Party. A question of

veracity was raised and to the disadvantage of Fletcher. Thereupon he

resigned his seat in the House and returned to Massachusetts.

Mr. Frank B. Crowninshield was opposed to the bill, and anxious to

secure its defeat, but he was unwilling to take the responsibility of

contributing openly to that result. Privately he informed me that the

purpose was to make a place for Fletcher. In the course of my remarks,

in reply to Lunt I said that if the object of the managers was to

provide a place for a man who had fallen into discredit, in another

branch of the public service, then as far as I knew, the bill was _sui

generis._

Several members, among them General William Schouler, disclaimed all

knowledge of any arrangement such as I had referred to. These

assertions of ignorance were not troublesome, but Otis P. Lord, of

Salem, rose and after many personal compliments said "I call upon the

member from Groton to give his authority for the suggestion he makes in

regard to the purpose of this bill." At that moment my mind reverted

to the controversy between Adams and the Federalists.

In 1825 or 1826 Mr. Jefferson wrote a letter that was printed in the

_National Intelligencer,_ in which he gave his version of statements

made by Mr. Adams. Among others he said that Mr. Adams had told him

that he had evidence of the purpose of the Federalists during the War

of 1812 to secure a dissolution of the Union, and the organization of

an eastern confederacy.

Mr. Adams wrote a letter in which he explained some of Mr. Jefferson's

statements, but of this he took no notice. Its accuracy, therefore,

was admitted. Thereupon the Federalists of Boston, wrote to President

Adams, demanding his authority for the statement. That authority he

refused to give. Alluding to the many names appended to the letter of

the Federalists, he said: "No array of numbers or of talent shall

induce me to make the disclosure sooner than my sense of duty requires,

and when that time arrives, no array of numbers or talent shall deter

me from it." After some remarks intended to connect the Whig and

Federal parties I repeated the conclusion of Mr. Adams' pamphlet and

made my escape in the smoke. Crowninshield sat upon the dais in front

of the speaker during the debate. I made no allusion to him, for I

commanded my faculties sufficiently to enable me to realize that if he

denied my allegations the denial would be fatal to my standing, and

that he would be seriously injured if he accepted my statement. The

event taught me a lesson, and thenceforward I have avoided all

reference in debate to private conversations.

[* Mr. Newell is the only member living, March, 1901.]

XIV

THE LEGISLATURE OF 1849

In the year 1849, two men were elected to the Massachusetts House of

Representatives who have had conspicuous careers in the State and

nation,--General Nathaniel P. Banks and Henry L. Dawes. General Banks

had genius for politics and the generalities of public affairs. As an

orator he was peculiar and attractive to an unusual degree. For a long

period his popularity was great in his town and district, and finally

in the State. A long life was the possession of General Banks, and I

have only to consider how its opportunities were treated, and its

duties performed. The beginnings of his life were humble enough, but

the beginnings of life, whether humble or otherwise, are of no

considerable consequence to strong characters.

General Banks' public career began with his election to the

Massachusetts House of Representatives, when he was far along in his

thirty-third year. His eminence as a debater and his pre-eminence as

a parliamentarian, were established without much delay, and in 1851 he

was raised to the speaker's chair. In 1852, he was again elected

speaker of the house, and in 1853, and without debate, he was chosen to

preside over the Constitutional Convention. He was then elected to

Congress, and thenceforward he was a conspicuous personality in the

great events of the war; both on the civil and military side of

affairs. He achieved distinction in the Thirty-third Congress, and

after a long and bitter contest in the Thirty-fourth Congress, he was

elected speaker of the House of Representatives. His associates in

that House gave him rank next to Mr. Clay, and through tradition that

rank is still accorded to him.

During his administration as Governor of the State, from 1858 to 1861,

he made military preparations for that contest of arms, which even

then was thought by some not to be improbable and by a few thought to

be inevitable. It was during that period that he delivered the

address at the dedication of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at

Cambridge. The address met most fully the expectations of the

authorities at Cambridge, and it gave General Banks standing as an

orator when Massachusetts had orators--Everett, Choate, Phillips,

Hillard,--and when Harrison Gray Otis and Webster had not been

forgotten.

At the opening of the war Mr. Lincoln tendered to General Banks a

commission of the first rank, and a command of corresponding

importance. He had not received a military education, and he was

without experience in military life. His selection was due to a

general and well founded opinion that he possessed military qualities,

courage and decision, and that he was inspired by a deep devotion to

the Union. General Banks was a firm believer in the justice of our

cause, and he was animated by an unbounded confidence in our success,--

a confidence which was not impaired in the darkest days of the Civil

War. After the passing of a third of a century, a review of the entire

field on the Civil side does not reveal a character more worthy than

General Banks of high military command. In all the vicissitudes of his

military career, and success did not always wait upon his undertakings,

he never lost the confidence of Mr. Lincoln, nor Mr. Stanton, who was

the most exacting of men, whenever an officer failed in his duties.

General Banks' military career may be considered in three parts. As to

the campaigns of 1861 and 1862, on the Potomac, and in the valley of

the Shenandoah, it is to be said that his fortunes were in the main

the fortunes of McDowell, McClellan, and Pope, yet even in the presence

of general disaster, he gained distinction by his courage, resolution,

and equanimity of temper. The capture of Port Hudson, undertaken and

accomplished under his command, opened the Mississippi River below

Vicksburg to military operations and to business intercourse. The

event was second only in importance to the surrender of Vicksburg.

The Red River campaign was an ill advised undertaking, for which

General Banks was in no degree responsible. Indeed, he advised against

the movement. This I say upon his specific statement made to me. The

undertaking was a great error. There never was a day after April,

1861, when it was not apparent that the south-western portion of the

union, beyond the Mississippi River, would yield whenever that river

was opened to the Gulf, and the army of Lee had capitulated. Hence the

unwisdom of the undertaking. It is sufficient to say that nothing

occurred in that campaign which was discreditable to General Banks.

The obstacles were too great to have been overcome, and nothing in the

nature of success could have been attained by Sherman or Grant. I turn

again to the aspect of General Banks' career on the civil side.

In knowledge of parliamentary law and in ability to administer that law

it may be claimed justly that General Banks had no rival in his

generation. As a speaker he approached the rank of an orator, if he

did not attain to it. His presence was stately and attractive, his

voice was agreeable, far reaching and commanding, and his control of an

audience was absolute, for the time being. That his auditors may at

times have differed from his conclusions but only when the speech was

ended, and the spell was broken, is evidence of his power as a speaker.

That he came into public life as the associate and rival of Sumner,

Wilson, and Burlingame, and that in his whole career as a public man he

kept his equal place to the end, and that in Congress he suffered

nothing when compared with the able men who occupied seats in the lower

House between the year 1850 and the year 1870, give him rank as one of

the foremost statesmen of his time. If it be said that his name is not

identified with any important measure of the government the same may be

said of Mr. Sumner, of Mr. Wilson, of Mr. Conkling, and others, whose

speeches and opinions have had large influence upon the policy of the

country. A great measure is the result of many causes and in its

promulgation it may bear the name of a person whose contribution has

been insignificant relatively.

General Banks had aptitude for public affairs--an aptitude which

approached genius. His mind dwelt upon great projects, and never upon

petty schemes, nor upon intrigues as a means of success. His warfare

was a bold one, and in the open field. In politics he was deficient in

organizing qualities, but he had unbounded confidence in his own

ability and in the ability of his associates and friends to command and

to retain popular support. As to himself, that confidence rested upon

an adequate basis. In the last fifty years there has been no other man

in Massachusetts who was as generously supported, and by people of all

classes. For the masses, who saw him and who knew him, only as he

appeared on the platform, there was an inspiration in his presence and

in his speeches, and for his associates and friends there was a

generous companionship which none could resist--which none wished to

resist. In his private life there was no malice in his intercourse

with men; in the strife of war there was no vindictiveness in spirit

nor in the means of prosecuting war.

A patriotic man, who trusted the people, and a man whom the people

trusted; a brave soldier, who retained the confidence of his troops,

and of his superiors in all the vicissitudes of war; a friend whose

friendship was not changed nor tempered by the changing events of life.

Such was General Banks to many and to myself, his companion, and often

co-worker, and always friend through a lengthened half century.

Mr. Dawes was not a leader in the Massachusetts House of

Representatives and no one could then have predicted his success in

public life. Something of what the world calls fortune has attended

him. He possessed the quality or faculty of industry, but his studies

did not extend beyond the current demands of the situation. As a

lawyer he was not distinguished. He had none of the qualities of an

orator, indeed it was not always a pleasure to listen to his speeches.

His manners were not attractive, and of genial wit he was wholly

innocent. He had a power of sarcasm, and in his speeches he presented

himself in the phase of umpire often, although at times he appeared in

the aspect of a contestant. Indeed, this was in his nature. He was a

thorough partisan who seemed unwilling to own the fact. His friends

could not claim for him any of the qualities for which successful men

are commonly distinguished, and yet he has been one of the most

successful men that the State has produced. Such success must rest on

a substantial basis of merit.

For a single term, between 1846 and 1850 Benjamin R. Curtis was a

member of the House. He had already acquired fame as a jurist. His

speeches in the house were the speeches that he made to courts and

juries. He was destitute of genius, and his speeches exhibited no

variety of talent. They were adapted to the argument of questions of

law before a court; hence he was not successful as a jury lawyer, and

his speeches in the house were usually convincing, although they were

never attractive. Judge Curtis' intellectual faculties matured early.

Mr. Wilde, for many years the clerk of the court of Suffolk, expressed

to me the opinion that Judge Curtis' first argument was as good as his

last argument. There can be no doubt, however, that his legal

arguments were unrivalled in recent times. He was equipped with all

the legal learning that could be required in any case. He had the

capacity to see the points on which a case must turn, and he had the

courage to pass over the immaterial facts, and points in which other

men often lay stress to the injury of their arguments, and to the

annoyance of the courts. In his arguments in the impeachment case of

President Johnson, he furnished the only ground on which the Senate

could stand in rendering a verdict of not guilty.

During his service in the House he introduced an extraordinary bill

which received little or no support from the members. By that bill it

was made a misdemeanor to flow the land of another for any purpose

whatsoever, thus changing the ancient Mill Act of the State; provided,

however, that it should not apply to any citizen of Massachusetts. It

was said that Curtis had a client whose land had been flowed by a

Rhode Island man, and not being willing to pursue him in the courts of

the United States, he framed the bill in question. Of course the bill

failed. Again in 1851 he gave an opinion that Sumner, Wilson, myself

and perhaps some others, could be indicted for the coalition by which

the Whig Party was driven from power in Massachusetts. The opinion was

printed secretly and read in the Whig caucus, where it received so

little support that it was suppressed. When the parties had

disappeared, I read a copy that had been preserved in the office of the

Boston _Journal._

Judge Curtis was a jurist, and that only. He had no literary taste in

the true sense, although the statement has been made that he was a

constant reader of novels. However that may have been, his speeches

were seldom if ever adorned or burdened by illustrations or references

outside of the books of the profession.

George T. Curtis, a brother of Benjamin R., was a member of the House

for several years, between 1840 and 1850. With the overthrow of the

Whig Party in 1851, he disappeared from the politics of the State, and

at about the same time he removed to New York. As a writer he is clear

and methodical, but from choice or fortune many of his subjects have

not been acceptable, and his treatment of his subjects has been counter

usually to the general opinion of the country. As the son-in-law of

Judge Story and the brother of Judge Curtis, there was a general

expectation that his career would be distinguished. That expectation

was not realized. His self-conceit was unbounded. That defect made

him unpopular with his professional brethren, and at last it alienated

his clients. Even Mr. Choate, the gentlest of men, could not endure

Mr. Curtis. Of him he said, "Some men we hate for cause, but George

T. Curtis we hate peremptorily."

Charles P. Curtis was also a member of the House for many years. He

was a more genial man than either the Judge or George T. The three

constituted the fraternity known as _the Curtii._ Chief Justice Shaw,

who had married a Curtis, was also included in the brotherhood.

XV

MASSACHUSETTS POLITICS AND MASSACHUSETTS POLITICIANS

1850-51 AND 1852

The defeat of General Cass in 1848 changed the policy of the leaders of

the Democratic Party in Massachusetts. These leaders were David

Henshaw, Charles G. Greene, and as an assistant Benjamin F. Hallett.

The first two had controlled the patronage of the general government

very largely during the administrations of Jackson, Van Buren and Polk.

They looked to the election of General Cass as a continuation of that

policy. These leaders considered the control of Massachusetts as

hopeless, and not unlikely they considered the national patronage as

more valuable than the offices of the State. Hence they were ready to

endorse whatever the Washington authorities demanded. Consequently

our platforms tended to alienate voters rather than to attract them.

This policy was very disagreeable to the younger members of the party,

but they were unable to resist it. The Boston _Post,_ owned by Colonel

Greene, was the leading Democratic paper in the State. Many of the

country papers followed its lead. The Worcester _Palladium_ was an

exception, but its influence was limited.

Greene and Hallett attributed the defeat of General Cass to the

defection of the South and for the time they were disposed to sanction

or to permit a policy of retaliation. Consequently the State

Convention of 1849 was disposed to utter the sentiments of the party

in regard to slavery. For many years Hallett had been the chairman of

the Committee on Resolutions. He was designated for that position in

1849. The Free-soil Party had already become a power in the State.

It was led by men who had been prominent in the Whig Party in its last

days. Hallett reported a resolution in which was this expression:

"We are opposed to slavery throughout all God's heritage." When the

Democratic Party regained power in 1853 this declaration threatened to

impede Hallett in his plans for office and influence. Pierce made

allowances for the circumstances and rewarded Hallett with the office

of district attorney. The resolutions, however, tended to conciliate

the anti-slavery element of the State and in many towns and in some of

the counties the Democrats and Free-soilers coalesced and elected a

formidable minority of the Legislature. The result of the coalition

demonstrated the possibility of a combination which could control the

State. The Convention gave me the nomination, and without any serious

opposition. Stephen C. Phillips of Salem, was the candidate of the

Free-soil Party. Together we had a majority of the popular vote, and

Governor Briggs was elected Governor by the Legislature. The plurality

rule had not then been adopted.

In 1850 each of the three parties nominated the same candidates and the

coalition in the towns, cities and counties was much more complete.

The victory was decisive. When the Legislature assembled, Henry

Wilson, Free-soiler, was chosen president of the Senate and General

Banks, Democrat, was chosen speaker of the House. The candidates of

the Democratic Party were elected to the office of Governor and

Lieutenant Governor. The council was divided between the parties. The

selection of a candidate for the Senate was left for the Free-soil

Party. The choice fell upon Mr. Sumner, although there was a large

public sentiment, especially in the Democratic Party, in favor of Mr.

Phillips. Such was my own opinion at the time, but the result showed

the wisdom or good fortune of the selection that was made. Mr.

Phillips was a man of education, a merchant by profession, and a

gentleman who enjoyed the confidence of the public. He was an Anti-

Slavery man upon principle, but his intellectual movements were slow,

and his power as a forensic speaker was moderate only.

In January, 1851, when these events were occurring, the prospects of

the National Democratic Party had improved. The Henshaw wing of the

party in Massachusetts were anticipating a success in 1852. Mr.

Webster had made his famous and fatal speech on the 7th of March, 1850.

President Taylor had died, and Mr. Fillmore was President. He had

reorganized the Cabinet and endorsed the Compromise Measures, and

finally the Whig Party was divided, hopelessly. In this condition of

affairs, Greene and Hallett entered upon a vigorous opposition to the

election of Sumner. The Boston _Post_ called upon the Democratic

members of the House to oppose his election. About twenty-eight

members known as "old hunkers" followed the lead of the _Post._ After

a long contest Mr. Sumner was elected by a single vote. As far as I

know, Mr. Sumner was not a party to any arrangement as to a division of

the offices, and I am sure that I was never consulted upon the subject.

As far as arrangements were made, they were made by members of the

Legislature. The members had been elected by a coalition among the

people and they executed the will of the people. The vacant places

were filled by representative men from each of the parties. While the

struggle over the election of Senator was going on, the Legislature

proceeded to elect a Senator for the term that was to expire the 4th

of March, 1851. It was the seat that Mr. Webster had vacated to take

the office of Secretary of State under Mr. Fillmore. Governor Briggs

had appointed Robert C. Winthrop to the vacancy.

The Legislature elected Robert Rantoul, Jr., to the vacancy. Mr.

Rantoul was then in the West, and his address was not known to any one.

Mr. Ezra Lincoln, a friend to Mr. Winthrop, came to me and said that

Mr. Winthrop wished to have Mr. Rantoul's credentials sent to him, as

he should feel unpleasant if they were sent to any one else.

Accordingly they were so sent. In a few days Mr. Lincoln called and

said that Mr. Winthrop wished to know whether he should present the

credentials at once, or hold them until Mr. Rantoul appeared. I said

in reply that I was the agent of the Legislature for the transmission

of the certificate, and that I did not feel at liberty to give

instructions. Thereupon Mr. Winthrop presented the credentials of Mr.

Rantoul, and retired from the Senate. This act was followed by attacks

upon me, by Senators and by newspapers, the charge being that I had

driven Mr. Winthrop from the Senate and at a time when an important

question relating to the tariff was pending. Neither Mr. Winthrop nor

any of his friends made any explanation. Mr. Lincoln came to me and

expressed his regrets that the attacks had been made, and he

volunteered to use his influence with the _Daily Advertiser,_ and

induce it to suspend its attacks. This he did, I presume, as that

paper made no further allusion to the subject. As for myself, I

remained silent, following a rule that I had formed early in life, to

avoid public controversy concerning my own acts. This rule, however,

was not an inflexible one.

Mr. Winthrop was then a candidate for the Senate against Mr. Sumner.

He was sensitive, no doubt, and he may have felt that it was his duty

to present Mr. Rantoul's credentials without delay. That was the

proper course, probably, and the question whether his term in the

Senate was continued a few days was of no public or personal

consequences whatsoever. Up to that point Mr. Winthrop's career had

been one of uninterrupted success. He was the favorite of Boston, and

he belonged to an old and venerated family. His talents were of a high

order, his education the best that the times afforded, his character

without a blemish, and there was no reason arising from personal

conditions why he should not have become the representative man of the

State. With the event mentioned, his public life ended. Mr. Sumner

was elected to the Senate. The next year the Whig Party nominated Mr.

Winthrop and I was brought into direct competition with him. Again he

failed.

When, in 1855, the Republican Party was organized, a committee waited

upon Mr. Winthrop, and invited him to join the movement. His public

record was satisfactory upon the slavery question, that is, it was

better than that of many others who became Republicans. He declined to

take a position, and gave as a reason that he was unwilling to act with

the men who were leading the movement. He named Sumner, and Wilson.

If his decision had been otherwise, it is quite doubtful if his nerve

would have been equal to the contests through which the Republican

Party was destined to pass. Mr. Winthrop had in him nothing of the

revolutionary spirit. In England, in the times of Cromwell he would

have followed the fortunes of the Stuarts, and it is difficult to

imagine him as the associate of Samuel Adams, John Adams, and Thomas

Jefferson, in Revolutionary days.

Mr. Rantoul appeared in the Senate after a few days, and his term

lasted about twenty days, giving him an opportunity to make one speech.

He was afterwards elected to the House of Representatives from the

Essex District, and died while a member at the age of forty-seven

years. His death was a serious loss to the anti-slavery Democrats of

Massachusetts and the country. He was one of the three distinguished

men that the county of Essex has produced in his century: Choate,

Cushing and Rantoul. In oratorical power he could not be compared to

Choate. In learning he was of the three the least well equipped. In

logic he was superior to Cushing, and he was more direct, and more

easily comprehended than either Cushing or Choate. He had not much

imagination, and his illustrations were simple and rather commonplace.

As a debater he has had but few equals in our State. He was a radical,

a reformer by nature. He was opposed to capital punishment, an

advocate of temperance, of prison reform, and a zealous free trader.

He made war upon the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 contending that the

Constitution imposed upon the States the duty of returning fugitives

from labor. This theory seemed to me at the time, as the result of a

violent construction of the Constitution, and so it seems to me now.

Nevertheless it satisfied many who wised to oppose the Fugitive Slave

Law, and sustain the Constitution at the same time.

During the Senatorial contest I was urged by the supporters of Sumner

to aid his election, and by the "hunker" wing of the Democratic Party

--I was urged to bring the influence of the administration to bear

against Mr. Sumner. To all I made the same reply. I said: "I am not

pledged to elect Mr. Sumner, I am not pledged to defeat him. The

subject is in the control of the Legislature." I did, however, delay

making removals and appointments and upon the ground that the election

or defeat of Mr. Sumner would affect the appointments to office in the

State.

Mr. Cushing had a violent prejudice against shoemakers. Under the

coalition, Wilson became president of the Senate, Amasa Walker,

Secretary of the Commonwealth, John B. Alley, a Senator, and member of

the Council, all shoemakers, or interested in the shoe and leather

trade. In addition to these there were many persons of prominence and

influence in the party who were in the same business. The "shoe towns"

generally supported the Free-soil Party. One morning I received a call

from Mr. Cushing, before I had taken my breakfast. Evidently he had

had a conference with the leading "hunkers" who had deputed him to

state their case to me. After considerable conversation, which perhaps

was not satisfactory to Mr. Cushing, he put this question to me, and

with great emphasis: "What I wish to know, Governor, is whether this

State is to be 'shoemakerized' or not?" With a laugh I said, "General,

I cannot tell, whether it is to be 'shoemakerized' or not." Upon this

the general left. When he had had interviews with Greene and Hallett,

he became anxious for Sumner's defeat; when he was with the

coalitionists he would become, in a measure, reconciled to his

election. The truth was, Cushing was destitute of convictions. By his

residence in the east he had lost faith in our religion, in our

civilization, and, in a degree, in our political system. However, he

had no stronger faith in any other system. His purposes were not bad,

and his disposition to aid others was a charming feature of his

character. He would oblige an associate whenever he could do so. As

a legislator he would perfect bills that he did not approve, and his

stores of knowledge were at the service of any one who chose to make

requests of him. Indeed he often volunteered information and

suggestions. His reading was so vast and his experience so great,

that his professional arguments were often over-loaded. As a jurist

his influence with courts was limited. He did not aid the judicial

mind. It was seldom necessary for the court to either accept or

answer his arguments. On one occasion, he commenced an argument to the

Supreme Court of Massachusetts with the obscure philosophical

observation: "An impossibility is the greatest possible fact."

General Cushing was learned in many ways, but his faculties were not

practical, and he was too much inclined to adhere to the existing

powers, and consequently he was ready to change whenever a new party

or a new set of men attained authority. As an official, he would obey

instructions, and as an assistant in legal, historical, or diplomatic

researches, he had no rival. He attained to high positions, and yet he

was never fully trusted by any administration or party. His personal

habits were peculiar. In later years, his economy degenerated into

parsimony. This may have been due in part to his lack of financial

skill. First and last he was led into many unprofitable undertakings,

and as a results, his patrimony, which was something, and his

professional earnings which were considerable, were consumed. He was

in debt usually, and he limited his expenses that he might meet his

liabilities. He was eccentric. I have met him at evening

entertainments arrayed in a dress suit with a bright red ribbon for a

necktie.

General Cushing had great qualities, but he was not a great man. He

had immense capacity that he could use in aid of others, but he lacked

ability to mark out a course for himself, or he lacked tenacity or

purpose in pursuing it. His ambition had no limits, and he would

swerve from his personal obligations in the pursuit of place. In my

administration he was made a judge of the Supreme Court of the State,

and upon an understanding that he would retain the place. During the

few months that he was upon the bench, he gave promise of success, but

upon the election of President Pierce, he could not resist the offer of

a seat in his Cabinet. As Attorney-General he did not add materially

to his reputation, but his opinions are distinguished for research and

for learning. The nomination of Pierce was promoted by the officers

who had served in Mexico. Previous to the Democratic Convention of

1852, Gideon J. Pillow came to Boston, and he and General Cushing

visited Pierce in New Hampshire. They also called upon me and laid

open a scheme in which they invited me to take a part. It was in fact

a project for an organization inside the Democratic Party, by which the

action of the party should be controlled. First, a central

organization composed of a few men self-constituted; next a small

number of assistants in each State who were to organize through

confidential agents in the counties, cities and large towns. All these

agencies through newspapers and by other expedient means would be able,

it was thought, to control the party nominations, and the party policy.

I had then declined a renomination to the office of Governor, and I was

able to say with truth, that I intended to retire from active

participation in politics. I declined to consider the subject further.

Whether or not the scheme was matured, I have no knowledge.

That campaign and his transfer to Pierce's Cabinet led Cushing to adopt

the views of southern men upon the slavery question, and his unwise

speeches and letters interrupted his success, finally, and at a moment

when success was most important to him. In the autumn or early in

December, 1860, he made a succession of speeches at Newburyport which

were calculated to promote the views of the Secessionists. At about

the same time he wrote a letter which was read before the Republican

Senatorial Caucus, when his name was before the Senate for confirmation

as Chief Justice of the United States. That letter compelled President

Grant to withdraw the nomination. At a period during the war General

Cushing was disposed to enter the army, and there was a movement in

favor of his appointment as Brigadier-General. Andrew, Sumner, and

some others, appeared in opposition, and the appointment was not made.

While I held the office of Secretary of the Treasury, General Cushing

gave to a friend of mine, and to myself, an invitation to drive out to

his farm, the Van Ness place, about six miles from Washington, on the

Virginia heights, and take tea with him. After business we drove to

his farm. I took a seat with Cushing in his buggy-wagon, and my

friend followed in another vehicle. As we were passing through

Georgetown, we stopped at a shop where Cushing obtained a loaf of

bread. Upon reaching his place we were taken over the land. Its

quality was inferior and it showed the neglect of former owners, and

there were indications that the present owner had done little or

nothing for its improvement. The foreman was a Virginian, with but

little knowledge of farming. The house-keeping was crude. The table

was a coarse one. There was neither tablecloth nor napkins. The

repast consisted of tea, the bread purchased on the way, soft butter,

cold corned beef, and blackberries. When we entered the room Mr.

Cushing went to a bureau, and took from a drawer a package which

contained steel knives and forks, such as I had been accustomed to sell

when a boy in a country store. From the appearance the cutlery had

never been used, but its antiquity was marked by spots of rust.

This incident shows the democratic side of Mr. Cushing's character. He

had also an aristocratic side. During General Grant's administration,

a Mr. Kennedy, who had been a merchant at Troy, New York, came to

Washington and distinguished himself by his somewhat ostentatious

entertainments to diplomats and other notable persons. This proceeding

annoyed Mr. Cushing, and he gave voice to his feelings in this manner:

--"Mr. Kennedy, an ironmonger, comes here from Troy and sets himself

up as a personage. He is not a personage at all, sir: not at all,

sir."

When I became Governor in January, 1851, there were a large number of

offices at the disposal of the Governor and Council. Of these there

were sheriffs, district attorneys, registers of probate, clerks of

courts, and registers of deeds. There were also individual places

that were subject to executive control. As a general fact, and I do

not recall an exception, all the officers were filled with Whigs. We

entered upon a policy of removing the incumbents and appointing

members of the Democratic and Free-soil parties.

I made one notable exception. John H. Clifford was Attorney-General.

I retained him while I held the office of Governor, and he became my

successor. A part of his capital was in the circumstance that I had

shown confidence in him. He was a good officer and an upright man, but

he lacked the quality which enables a man to reach conclusions. This

peculiarity made him useful to me. He would investigate a subject,

give me the authorities, and precedents, and leave the conclusions to

me. Next, there was no one in the administration party whom I wished

to appoint. Mr. Hallett was the candidate most generally supported.

He was full of prejudices and he was not well instructed as a lawyer.

In these respects Clifford was his opposite. I chose, therefore, to

retain Clifford and submit to the criticisms of my party supporters.

Among the persons removed was Mr. Fiske, register of probate for the

county of Middlesex. In 1854 the citizens of Fitchburg and the

adjoining town petitioned the Legislature for an act authorizing a new

county to be formed of towns from the counties of Middlesex and

Worcester. Mr. Choate appeared for the petitioners. Emory Washburn

appeared for the county of Worcester and I was retained for the county

of Middlesex. One point in our defence was to show that the Middlesex

towns were not subject to any inconvenience. In the list of witnesses

furnished by the county commissioners was the name of Mr. Fiske. When

I read his name I had a feeling that he might give me some trouble, as

I knew that he was very bitter in his feelings. When he came upon the

stand I approached him gently. After the customary questions, I said:

--"Mr. Fiske, have you held office in the county of Middlesex?" "Yes,

sir. I was register of probate from 1823 to 1851, when I was removed

by Governor Boutwell,--the meanest act but one, that I ever knew."

Being so far in, and subject to considerable laughter from the

audience, I thought it safe to go farther, and I said:--"Will you be

kind enough to mention the meaner act that you have in mind?" "That

I was not reappointed by Governor Clifford when he had the power."

Having thus unburdened his mind, the ex-register gave very satisfactory

testimony.

One of the important events that occurred during my administration was

the ceremony in honor of the opening of railway communication with

Canada. Distinguished persons were present. President Fillmore; Mr.

Webster; Mr. Stuart and Mr. Conrad of his Cabinet; Lord Elgin,

Governor-General of Canada; Sir Francis Hincks, Attorney-General of

Canada, and afterwards Governor-General of Jamaica; Joseph Howe,

Provincial Secretary of Nova Scotia; the Governors of several New

England States, and others whose names I do not recall. The time was

September, 1851. Mr. Webster arrived in Boston a few days in advance

of the President and took rooms at the Revere House. I called to see

him. In the course of the interview he said that whenever the State

appeared he would be ready to take part if invited to do so, but as to

the city he should have nothing to do with it. This resolution was due

to the circumstance that the city government in the preceding year had

refused the use of Faneuil Hall that he might speak in explanation and

vindication of his speech of the 7th of March, 1850. John P. Bigelow

was Mayor of the city in 1850, and he was also Mayor in 1851. Mr.

Webster also said that when the State authorities made their formal

call upon the President, he should be glad to introduce the members of

the government. Upon the arrival of the President, the officers of

the State government, to the number of about twenty, called at the

Revere House, where we were received by J. Thomas Stevenson, a personal

and political friend of Mr. Webster. He informed Mr. Webster of our

presence, and Mr. Webster soon appeared. He was dressed in what was

known as his court dress. A blue coat with bright buttons, buff vest,

black trousers, and patent leather shoes. His white cravat was high

and thick, over which was turned a wide collar. After the gentlemen

had been presented, he took me by the arm and we proceeded to the

reception room of the President. At the moment of our arrival Mayor

Bigelow was presenting the members of the city government. At once

Mr. Webster became excited, and advancing to the President, he took

possession of the ground, treating the Mayor as though he were a dog

under his feet. He introduced us in a loud voice, and at the end he

seemed to regret that the State government was not a more numerous

body.

The day following had been designated for the public reception of the

President and the members of his Cabinet in the Hall of the House of

Representatives. It followed that it was my official duty to deliver

an address of welcome. I prepared my address in which I made an

allusion to the members of the Cabinet from other States, but strange,

as it now appears, I made no allusion to Mr. Webster. I gave the

address to the newspapers and it was not until eleven o'clock that I

awoke to the fact of my neglect. I prepared a paragraph and sent it

to the papers in season for the afternoon edition. Mr. Webster sat

on my left. The President and the other members of the Cabinet were

on my right. The President arose when I did and remained standing.

When I alluded to Stuart and Conrad they gave no indication of their

presence, but when I referred to Mr. Webster he rose at once and the

Hall resounded with the cheers of the audience. Speeches in reply were

made by the President, by Mr. Webster, Mr. Stuart, and Mr. Conrad.

At the time Mr. Winthrop was the Whig candidate for Governor. He was

present in the audience. In the course of Mr. Webster's speech, he

gave my administration an endorsement in these words:--"I wish in the

first place to say that from the bottom of my heart I wish entire

success to your administration of the affairs of this State. Into

whosoever hands these affairs may fall, if they are fairly and

impartially administered, those hands shall have my hand in their

support, and maintenance." These words were received by the audience

and the people of the State as a more full endorsement of my

administration then the printed text justified. They gave Mr. Winthrop

and his friends much uneasiness and it is quite likely that they

contributed to Mr. Winthrop's defeat and to my re-election. In the

course of his speech Mr. Webster used these words speaking of the

people of Massachusetts: "And yet all are full of happiness, and all

are, as we say in the country, well-to-do in the world and enjoying

neighbor's fare." This phrase puzzled me, but at length I reached

the conclusion, that the people were living so well that they could

invite a neighbor who called without notice to take a seat at table

without making any change. In other words, that the daily fare of the

people was good enough for the neighbors.

In the autumn of 1851 a meeting was called in aid of Smith O'Brien and

his associates, who then were in banishment at Van Diemen's Land. Of

the project for the meeting I knew nothing until I received a call from

a committee of Irishmen asking me to preside. I saw no reason for

declining, and I therefore accepted the invitation, and without any

thought of its significance in politics. It was said afterwards that

the meeting had been promoted by the friends of Mr. Winthrop, with the

expectation that he would be invited to preside. Upon the vote in

committee, the invitation came to me, by a majority of one vote only.

The meeting was a great success, and probably it gave me some votes

among the Irish population.

XVI

ACTON MONUMENT

While I held the office of Governor, two memorial events occurred, of

some importance. The first was the erection and dedication of a

monument in the town of Acton, to the memory of Captain Isaac Davis,

and two others, who were killed the 19th of April, 1775, at the Old

North Bridge in Concord. A feud had existed for many years between the

towns of Concord and Acton each claiming the honors of the battlefield

on that date. Of Concord it was alleged that not a drop of blood was

lost on the occasion. Recently, however, it is claimed that one man

was wounded. As to Acton there was no doubt that Captain Davis with

his company was assigned to the right of the line, and to the head of

the advancing column, although he was not by seniority entitled to

that place. Davis and two of his company were killed by the first fire

of the enemy. In 1836 Concord had erected a monument which Emerson

has immortalized in his dedication hymn. James T. Woodbury, a brother

of Judge Levi Woodbury, was an orthodox minister settled in Acton. He

was interested in politics, and in the year 1851 he was a member of the

House of Representatives, where he championed the cause of Acton. He

asked for an appropriation of one thousand dollars to enable the town

to erect a suitable monument. He adorned his speech and gave effect to

his oratory by the introduction of the shoe-buckles which Davis wore,

and the powder horn which another of the victims carried on the day of

the fight. The appropriation was granted. The preceding year the town

of Concord had celebrated the seventy-fifth anniversary of the battle.

Robert Rantoul, Jr., delivered the oration. The town of Acton was

represented, but the president of the day, the Hon. E. R. Hoar, chose,

as it was said, to avoid calling upon Parson Woodbury, as he was then

designated. A Mr. Hayward, a man of some note, but not gifted in

speech, was invited to respond to the toast to Acton. That he did in

this manner: "Concord Fight. Concord furnished the ground, and Acton

the men." This sally of history and sarcasm was attributed to Parson

Woodbury.

The Governor was made a member of the committee to erect the monument.

Our first real difficulty was upon the inscription. It was claimed

that Davis had said as he took his place at the head of the line "I

haven't a man who is afraid to go." This indicated that cowardice had

been manifested in some quarter. Woodbury insisted that this

expression should be included in the inscription. I was opposed to its

use on account of the implication it contained, and also for the reason

that it was no easy matter to incorporate it in a sentence that would

be tolerable upon granite. Mr. Woodbury wrote two inscriptions.

General Cushing tried his hand. I prepared one or two. Finally

Woodbury triumphed, and the monument bears the words attributed to

Davis. I was invited to deliver the address at the dedication, October

29, 1851, and the Rev. John Pierpont was invited to deliver the poem.

The exercises were in a large tent capable of seating a thousand

persons at dinner. The day was dull but the attendance was large. The

soldiers were on duty at an early hour, and they were ready for dinner

when they entered the tent at about eleven o'clock. The tables were

spread and the soldiers and guests took their seats at the tables, but

under an injunction that the repast would not begin until the address

and poem had been delivered. Fortunately the address came first. The

delivery occupied an hour or more. Mr. Pierpont commenced reading his

poem, but before he had made any considerable progress, a slight

clicking of knives was heard from the extreme portion of the tent. Mr.

Pierpont was an excitable man. He had a reputation as a preacher,

lecturer and poet. It was apparent from his flushed face that his

pride was wounded. I expected that Mr. Woodbury, who was president of

the day, would rise and ask the guests to abstain from eating until

Mr. Pierpont had finished reading his poem. The parson gave no sign,

however. The disturbance increased, and finally, Mr. Pierpont, with

face flushed to purple, threw down his manuscript under the box from

which he was reading, and sat down. I then expected that the president

would demand order. On the contrary, he stuck his hands straight into

the air, and said: "Let us ask a blessing." This he did with singular

brevity, and sitting down he helped himself from a plate of chicken

that stood before him, and at the same time turning to Mr. Pierpont he

said: "The listened very well, 'till you got to Greece. They didn't

care anything about Greece."

In the preparation of my address I found from the records that the town

of Acton had as early as the year 1774 declared, by resolution in town

meeting, in favor of an American Republic, adding: "This is the only

form of government we wish to see established." Upon my own

investigation and upon the opinion of Mr. Webster, whom I consulted,

I ventured to say that this was the earliest declaration in favor of a

republic that was officially made in the American colonies.

My address ran as follows: