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.

He is immortalized in Lowell's "Biglow Papers,"

"John P. Robinson, he Says he won't vote for Governor B."

The Governor B. was Governor George N. Briggs, with whom Robinson had a quarrel about the year 1845.

Henry Wilson, afterwards Senator and Vice-President of the United States, was a member of the House in 1842 and 1843. He had risen to notice in the campaign of 1840. He was engaged by the Whig Party as one of its speakers and announced as the "Natick Cobbler."

He had worked in the trade of a shoemaker, and as the shoe interest was already a large interest in the State, it was a matter of no slight importance to give distinction to a representative of the craft. Wilson's family were destitute of culture, and although he had had the advantage of training at an academy for a year, perhaps, his attainments were very limited. I recollect papers in his handwriting in which the rule requiring a sentence to commence with a capital letter was disregarded uniformly. His style of speaking was heavy and unattractive. This peculiarity remained to the end. In those days Wilson was known as an Anti-Slavery Whig. In some respects Wilson's political career was tortuous, but in all his windings he was true to the cause of human liberty.

Although I was acquainted with Wilson from 1842 to the time of his death, I could never so analyze the man as to understand the elements of the power which he possessed. It may have rested in the circumstance that he appeared to be important, if not essential, to every party with which he was identified. His acquaintance was extensive and it included classes of men with whom many persons in public life do not associate. He made the acquaintance of all the reporters and editors and publishers of papers wherever he went. He frequented saloons and restaurants to ascertain public sentiment. In political campaigns he was the prophet, foretelling results with unusual accuracy.

Benjamin F. Thomas of Worcester was a leading man in the Whig Party, a good speaker, saving only that he appeared to vociferate. He was afterwards a judge of the Supreme Court of the State and for a single term he was a member of Congress.

As a lawyer his rank was good, almost eminent, in the State, but his career in Congress was a failure. He was a member of the Thirty- seventh Congress, and he failed to realize the issues and to comprehend the duties of a public man in an hour of peril. In 1862 he abandoned the Republican Party, and joined himself to a temporary organization in the State, called the People's Party.

The party disappeared upon its defeat in November, 1862, and Judge Thomas disappeared from politics.

Mr. Kinnicutt, the Speaker, in 1842, was a gentleman of agreeable manners, fair presence, and respectable, moderate abilities. He administered the office with entire fairness. His elevation to the post of Speaker, then thought to be one of great importance, may have been due to his residence at Worcester. In those days, as in these, Worcester was a center of political power and its leading men were able always to command consideration. When, in 1840, it was an urgency in party politics to defeat Governor Morton, John Davis, of Worcester, called "Honest John," was selected as the candidate, although he was then a member of the United States Senate.

In the sessions of 1843 and 1844, I originated three measures and introduced bills designed to give legal form to the measures.

1. A bill requiring cashiers of banks and treasurers of all other corporations to return to the assessors of each city and town the names of stockholders residing in each such city or town, the shares held by each and the par value of the shares. The bill was passed. The holders of stock who had theretofore escaped taxation were enraged, and a meeting to denounce the measure was held in Boston.

2. A bill to require the mortgagee to pay the tax on mortgaged real estate. The bill was then defeated, but recently the measure has become a law.

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.