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:

ADDRESS ON THE ACTON MONUMENT

The events of the American Revolution can never fail to interest Americans. This assemblage, men of Middlesex, is an assurance that you cherish the Revolutionary character of your county, and that you will be true to the obligations and duties which it imposes.

The event we commemorate is not of local interest only. It has, however, little value on account of the number of men who fought or fell; but it lives as the opening scene of a great revolution based on principle, and destined to change the character of human governments and the condition of the human race. The 19th of April, 1775, is not immortal because men fell in battle, but because they fell choosing death rather than servitude. The mere soldier who fights without a cause is unworthy our respect, but he who falls in defence of sound principles or valued rights deserves a nation's gratitude. Hence the battlefields of the Revolution shall gain new lustre, while Austerlitz and Waterloo shall be dimmed by the lapse of ages. Each nation cherishes and recurs to the leading events in its history. Time increases the importance of some of them and diminishes the magnitude of others. Many of them are eras in the history of countries and the world. Such are the lives of great men—philosophers, poets, orators, and statesmen. Such are battles and conquests, the foundation of new empires and the fall of old ones, changes in governments, and the administrations of renowned monarchs. Such were the conquest of Greece, the division of the Macedonian empire, the rise and fall of Rome, the discovery and settlement of this continent, the English commonwealth, the accession of William and Mary to the British throne, the American Revolution, and, finally the wars, empire, and overthrow of Napoleon. A knowledge of these events is not only valuable in itself, but it enables us to penetrate the darkness which usually obscures the daily life and character of a people. A true view of the life of Socrates gives us an accurate idea of Athens and the Athenian people. The protectorate of Cromwell, the great event in all English history, presents a view of the British nation while passing from an absolute government to a limited monarchy, slowly but certainly tending to republicanism.

The American Revolution was a clear indication in itself of what the colonies had been, and what the republic was destined to be. Had the Revolution been delayed, no history, however minute, could have given to the world as accurate knowledge of the colonists from 1770 to 1780 as it now possesses. It was the full development of all their history; it was the concise, vigorous, intelligible introduction to their future. It was a great illustration of pre-existing American character. Neither religious nor political fanaticism was an element of the American Revolution. It was altogether defensive—defensive in its assertion of principles—defensive in its warlike operations.

It is true that the Revolution was an important step towards freedom and equality, but the Revolutionists did not primarily contemplate the destruction or abandonment of the principles of the British government, but rather their preservation and perpetuity; and this in a great degree they accomplished. The two governments are dissimilar in many respects, but the principles which lie at the foundation of the one led to the formation of the other.

The Revolution was conservative. There was always a strong desire in the American mind to preserve, perpetuate, and improve existing institutions. Our fathers were not the enemies of government. They were ready at all times to sustain a government founded upon and recognizing the principles of equality and justice. Nor did they imagine that society could exist without the agency of a government in which force should be an element. In the early part of the struggle, while they denounced the policy of the British Ministry, they gave to the principles of the British system an unequivocal support. Many looked only to a reproduction of the home government upon these shores, but that was as impossible as the continuance of English authority.

It is vain to search for the particular cause, or even occasion, of the Revolution. It is not contained in any act of Parliament, or declaration of rights, or assertion of authority. The truth is, the colonies had reached that point of conscious strength when they must become an integral part of the British Empire, or be separated entirely from it. If there ever had been, there was no longer a feeling of dependence: they were capable of self-support and protection. There could be no allegiance except upon principles of equality—and this England refused. The connection was unnatural and burdensome—the separation was natural and beneficial. It is not a declaration of the law alone which limits the control of the father over the son, but in the order of nature there is a time when the son is capable of self- judgment, and thereafter as regards rights they are on terms of equality, and all civil and social arrangements proceed upon that theory.

But had Great Britain proposed union in 1775 to us, as in 1800 she did to Ireland, the obstacles were so serious that a separation must ultimately have taken place. One was the breadth of ocean between the two parts of the empire—then, and for sixty years, a more serious obstacle than at present. Another was the peerage—a part of the British system which could not have been abolished without the overthrow of the government, and yet incapable of introduction here. The proposition would have shocked the moral sentiment and the political principles of the whole people. And finally, our growing commerce, uneasy under monopolizing restraints and rival domination, demanded the freedom of the sea. Therefore it is evident that a union could not have been formed with any hope of permanence and power. Nor could the separation have taken place at a more fortunate time. The whole world would have had cause to regret our participation in the wars of Napoleon, and from them we were saved by independence.

Although the existence of these natural sources of alienation and disunion must be admitted, they furnish no justification for the general policy of England—first negligent, then jealous, then oppressive, and finally reckless and sanguinary.

But we have come together from our various pursuits to contemplate the virtue and power of the American Revolution in itself and in its consequences, to show that the sentiment of gratitude is not dead within us—and finally, and above all, to thank God for the choice displays of His goodness to the American people.

There are men who deny the virtue of the Revolution. They do it in obedience to the doctrine that all wars are wrong. But those only can consistently maintain this doctrine who also maintain that all governments are wrong. The idea of government includes the idea that there are governing and governed parties to it. In this country the two are united. But all governments which have ever existed, including our own, make war upon those who forcibly question their authority, undermine their power, violate their laws, outrage the persons or property of their citizens. These are acts of hostility against a state, and are prevented or redressed by force—the element of war. Therefore, in principle, the daily operations of a government in time of peace are not to be distinguished from its movements in war; and in war as well as in peace each government is responsible for the manner in which it exercises its authority.

If we may employ force in support of good government, we may also employ force in the overthrow of a bad government. If we may forcibly defend a natural right, we may employ force to regain natural rights of which we have been disseized. It is admitted amongst us that of all wars the Revolution is the most easily to be defended; but I desire to see it occupy the high moral ground which the most paternal and beneficial government occupies when it defends the natural and inalienable rights of its citizens.

The real question was this: Who may of right govern the North American colonies? the colonists themselves, or the Parliament of Great Britain? In the colonies there was no difference of opinion upon this point, though there was some as to the mode of securing its exercise. If, then, the right of self-government were in the colonists, did they use all proper means of securing its exercise previous to a resort to arms? They spent ten years in the work of petition, remonstrance and expostulation—and those ten years of experience convinced the people that the policy of the British Ministry and Parliament was fixed and irreversible; that there was only resistance to the execution of this policy on the one hand, and submission, which must end in abject slavery, on the other. If the American Revolution be morally indefensible, then not only are all wars indefensible, but all human governments, the wisest and the best, equally so.

The sentiment of the Revolution was altogether moral. There was an entire absence of the spirit of revenge, or rapine, or blood. They never for a moment placed as much reliance upon their numbers and strength as upon the justice of their cause and the existence of a Supreme Ruler, who controls the affairs of men. Such was the tone of the press, the pulpit and the bar. Everywhere the morality of the contest was examined and the ground carefully tested at each step. Not by leading men only, but by all those who had a vote to give in a town meeting or an arm to sustain the weapons of war. They were no zealots, like the crusaders; but plain, careful men, of sound moral principles and correct judgment. It is true that they were descendants of those who rejoiced when Charles the First was beheaded and James the Second was dethroned. This feeling, however, had no mixture of cruelty in it, but it proceeded from a conviction that those monarchs were unworthy of the throne. Their impulses were always in favor of liberty. They sympathized with the members of the Republican Party in England, encouraged them at home, and welcomed them to these shores.

The Revolution was no sudden outbreak or the consummation of the wild enthusiasm which sometimes characterizes popular movements. All through our colonial and provincial history, questions had arisen and been discussed which prepared the public mind for independence. The strength of the revolutionary spirit in the different colonies bore a distinct relation to the fervor of the preceding local controversies.

It is impossible to say at what moment the public mind was steadily directed to independence, either as a possible or desirable termination of the controversies with the mother country. Both the war with France and the peace with France precipitated the American Revolution. The war, by developing the military courage and skill of our people, and by increasing the burdens of Great Britain, thus affording a pretext for additional taxation on America. The peace, by relieving the colonies of the presence of a foe which they dreaded on its own account, as well as for its active agency in stimulating the Indians to deeds of hostility. Thus, in fact, England exchanged the thirteen colonies to which she was allied by blood, language, and similarity of institutions, for the provinces of France, whose people even now reject her religion and system of government. Thus the success of the combined British and American forces in the French war developed the revolutionary spirit, created new issues, and led to the early dismemberment of the British Empire.

But omitting the settlement of the country and the causes which led to it, there are incident all along our history which weakened the power of the home government. The most important, perhaps, were the decree in chancery of 1684, which annulled the colonial charter, and the grant of a new charter in 1692 by William and Mary. The first was an act of unmitigated despotism, the second of short-sighted selfishness. The decree in chancery was accepted, because the colonists had no hope of anything better. Thus the character of the government was changed fundamentally without the consent of the governed. The arrow aimed at colonial independence rankled in the public breast until the independence of America was achieved. The effort to strengthen British authority, in reality weakened it. Previous to 1684 religious profession was the basis of political rights, and the clergy gave direction to the policy of the state. John Cotton well states the result of the colony charter, to wit: "Such a form of government, as best serveth to establish their religion, should, by the consent of all, be established in the civil state. . . . The effect of this constitution was, first, that none but members of the church were freemen of the state; secondly, as none could be church members whom the minister did not approve, it followed that the ecclesiastical ruler had an efficient negative on the admission of every freeman; and thereby, as excommunication from the church created a civil, as well as ecclesiastical disability, it also followed that both the attainment and continuance of political rights were, to all practical purposes, in the hands of ecclesiastical rulers." By the provincial charter all this was abolished. The new government had exclusively for its end "the things about which the civil power is usually conversant; goods, lands, honors, the liberties and peace of the outward man." The influence of the clergy, at all times very great in New England, was thus separated from the English government, and they were at once identified in sympathy, hopes, and prospects, with the people of the colony. As I shall have occasion hereafter to say, this influence was essential to the success of the Revolution.

It is not likely that any form of government which Great Britain could have established, especially if it excluded our people from its control, could have maintained the union twenty-five years longer than the relation actually existed. The future in some particulars was as full of hope then to them as it is now to us. Many of their anticipations were so sanguine that the reality has not been equal to them. In 1763 an estimate was made that the population of New England in 1835 would be 4,000,000. From this it is apparent that they had already tasted prosperity and had come to understand the advantages of our country, especially in the character of its population, over the old countries of Europe.

The British Ministry did not discover the means by which the colonies were to be retained, if retained at all. Our ancestors had little respect for hereditary privileges and the pretensions of birth. They were for the most part believers in the equality of the human race; and, moreover, in their municipal governments, they had learned the safety and power of universal suffrage. A few men only in England had an accurate idea of American principles, or the difficulty of holding in unwilling embrace three million people. Among the representatives of this small class were the elder Pitt, Burke, and Wilkes.

Pitt declared that "three million people, so dead to all the feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of ourselves."

Said Wilkes, "Know, then, that a successful resistance is a revolution, not a rebellion. Who can tell whether in a few years the independent Americans may not celebrate the glorious era of the revolution of 1775 as we do that of 1688?" Nor did his prophetic eye fail to penetrate even the distant future. "Where your fleets and armies are stationed," said he, "the possession will be secured, while they continue; but all the rest will be lost. In the great scale of empire, you will decline, I fear, from the decision of this day; and the Americans will rise to independence, to power, to all the greatness of the most renowned states; for they build on the solid basis of general public liberty." These were words of wisdom; but nations, like individual men, learn anything sooner than their own faults, and confess anything sooner than their own mistakes.

It is difficult for the historian to understand the policy of attempting to control America by force; for nothing is more certain than that, if we had failed in establishing our independence, Great Britain would also have failed in subjecting us to her schemes. After the shedding of blood at Lexington, reconciliation was impossible; nor is it certain that it could have been accomplished after the massacre in King Street, in 1770. To be sure the proceedings of the towns and the tone of all the memorials and petitions indicate this; but there were unquestionably men who thought it better that the connection should be dissolved at as early a period as possible. These men were right, both as regards our condition and the prosperity of England. Had we remained her subjects, like all colonies, we should have been of no advantage pecuniarily, and most likely a source of some expense. But with independence and the Constitution came prosperity to us, in which, through trade and the increased demand for her manufactures, England has largely participated.