"They waste—they shrink away; And fast we follow, as they go Towards the setting day."

And if in the Providence of God the race is soon to be extinct, let not injustice, oppression, or war, increase their woes or hasten their decay.

XVIII LOUIS KOSSUTH*

When Louis Kossuth landed in New York, December 5, 1851, he was not an unknown personage. He and his native land had been made known to the people of the United States by the Revolution of 1848 and the contest of 1849 for the independence of Hungary. Until those events occurred, Hungary was only a marked spot on the map of Europe, and the name of Kossuth, as a leader in industrial and social progress, had not been written or spoken on this side of the Atlantic; but in the year 1851 there was no other person of a foreign race and language of whose name and career as much was known.

There was no exaggeration in Mr. Emerson's words of address to Kossuth: "You have got your story told in every palace, and log hut, and prairie camp throughout this continent."

From the first Kossuth recognized a special interest in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. This interest was due in part to the history of the State, from which he drew many lessons of instruction and much confidence that personal liberty and the independence and sovereignty of states would become universal possessions. Beyond these considerations the invitation to him from Massachusetts was made January 8, 1852,—among the first of the States of the Union.

In my annual address to the Legislature, delivered the 15th of January, I said: "Your action will be regarded as an expression of the sympathy of Massachusetts for the distinguished exile, and for the cause of European liberty, which he so truly represents. The common sentiment of America is on the side of constitutional governments."

The resolutions of the Legislature and the letter of the Governor were presented to Kossuth at Pittsburg, Pa., January 26, by Hon. Erastus Hopkins, then a member of the House of Representatives.

Kossuth's first speech in New England was made at New Haven, Thursday, April 22. From what he there said some inferences may be drawn as to his religious opinions and the basis on which, to him, the principles of freedom seemed to rest:

"I know that there is one God in Heaven, the Father of all humanity, and Heaven is therefore one. I know that there is one sun in the sky, which gives light to all the world. As there is unity in God, and unity in the light, so is there unity in the principles of freedom."

Upon his arrival in Boston, April 27, 1852, I met with him on the steps of the State House, greeting him with the following speech:

"Governor Kossuth: As the voice of the Legislature and people of Massachusetts, I welcome you to this capitol to-day.

"Your presence brings before us our own past, bitter in its experience, but glorious in its history. We once had apostles of liberty on whose heads a price was set, who were hunted by tyranny from their homes, and threatened with expulsion from civilized life. That day of oppression and anxiety with us is ended. It introduced a contest for human rights, whose results on this continent you have seen, in the extent, character and power of the American republic.

"The people of Massachusetts, inspired by their early history and animated by the impulses of their hearts, greet you as one who has nobly served and suffered in the cause of individual freedom and the rights of states. Nor will their admiration be limited by any consideration arising from the fate of your country, or the failure of the patriotic hopes with which it was inspired.

"Liberty can never die. The generations of men appear and pass away, but the principles and aspirations of their nature are immortal.

"Despotism is of time. It contains within itself the elements and the necessity of decay and death.

"Fifty years of your eventful life are past; but take courage, sir, in the belief that, in the providence of God, the moment is near when the light of freedom shall penetrate the darkness of European despotism. Then shall your own Hungary welcome you to her fields and mountains, to her homes and heart; and we will welcome Hungary to the family of republican, constitutional, sovereign states.

"In the name of the people, I tender to you the hospitalities of a commonwealth founded by Exiles and Pilgrims."

To this welcome to the capitol of Massachusetts, Kossuth replied as follows:

"I feel deeply sensible of the immense benefit which a happy and prosperous people has conferred upon an unfortunate people. Moments like the present can only be felt, not spoken. I feel a deep emotion, sir. I am not ashamed of it. Allow me to say that, in taking that hand, the hand of the people of Massachusetts, and having listened in your voice to the sentiments and feelings of the people of Massachusetts, I indeed cannot forbear to believe that humanity has arrived at a great turning point in its destinies, because such a sight was never yet seen on earth.

"Conquerors, triumphant and proud of success, confer honors and glory on a poor exile, having nothing to speak for him but his misfortunes.

"Sir, the spirit of liberty is lasting; liberty cannot die, because it has become the common sentiment of all humanity. The spirit of liberty takes itself wings,—you are happy to be the first-born son of that spirit; but we accept our condition just to be one of its martyrs; and I look with hope, I look with confidence, into the future, because that spirit which prepared for the poor exile the present day will be recorded in the records of history, and will mark the destiny of coming centuries. I cannot speak further. I am proud to have your hands in mine.

"And be sure, sir, and let your generous people be sure of it, that, whatever be our future destiny, we shall never, in our struggles and misfortunes and adversities, we shall never forget the generous Governor of Massachusetts, and the generous people of Massachusetts, and they shall never have reason to regret that we have been honored in this immense nation. God Almighty bless you, sir, and bless you all!

"I take these honors proudly, because I take them not for myself, but in the name of my people, in whose name I express my most humble, my eternal thanks."

Kossuth's visit to New England was confined, I think, to the States of Massachusetts and Connecticut. He spoke at Hartford, at Springfield, Northampton, Worcester, Lynn, Salem, Lowell, Fall River, Plymouth, Lexington and Concord, received everywhere by enormous crowds, and rousing everywhere an unexampled enthusiasm.

During his stay in Massachusetts he was introduced to audiences by distinguished men, some of whom had achieved no inconsiderable reputation as orators, and in most instances they were stimulated and advanced rather then dwarfed by the presence of one whose powers were far above the reach of ordinary speakers. Of these it is not invidious to mention Emerson, Banks, Burlingame, Hopkins and Kellogg.

Of the many who spoke in the presence of Kossuth there was no one whose words were more acceptable than were those of the venerable Josiah Quincy. He was then eighty years of age. At the banquet in Faneuil Hall he made a ten minutes' speech that glowed with the fire of youth. Its spirit can be exhibited in a quotation of two short sentences: "Age chills the feelings, and renders the heart cold; but I have still feeling enough left to say to the hero of the Old World, Welcome to the liberty of the New! I can say to the hero of Hungarian liberty, Welcome to the peace and happiness of our western home." At the commencement of his speech Kossuth said: "Before all, let me express a word of veneration and thanks to that venerable gentleman" (pointing to Mr. Quincy). "Sir, I believe when you spoke of age cooling the hearts of men, you spoke the truth in respect to ordinary men, but you did yourself injustice. The common excitement and warm blood of youth pass away; but the heart of the wise man, the older it grows the warmer it feels." It is difficult to imagine a more graceful impromptu recognition of words of praise.

Kossuth's speech at Bunker Hill, more than his other speeches in New England, bears marks of its Oriental origin. Pointing to the monument he said: "My voice shrinks from the task to mingle with the awful pathos of that majestic orator. Silent like the grave, and yet melodious like the song of immortality upon the lips of cherubim, . . . and thus it speaks: 'The day I commemorate is the rod with which the hand of the Lord has opened the well of liberty. Its waters will flow; every new drop of martyr blood will increase the tide; it will overflow or break through. Bow, and adore, and hope.'" In the course of his remarks he mentioned Gridley, Pollard, Knowlton and Warren, but he appears not to have heard of Putnam and Prescott.

At Lexington he said he was inclined to smile at the controversy with Concord, declaring that it was immaterial whether the fire of the British was first returned at Lexington or Concord; that its was immaterial whether those who fell at Lexington were "butchered martyrs, or victims of a battle-field."

Kossuth was presented to Amariah Preston, aged ninety-four years, and to Abijah Harrington, aged ninety-one years, veterans of the Revolutionary war, and to Jonathan Harrington, then ninety-four years of age, and the only survivor in Lexington of the action of April 19, 1775.

At Concord, Emerson said to the exile: "There is nothing accidental in your attitude. We have seen that you are organically in that cause you plead. The man of freedom, you are also the man of fate. You do not elect, but you are elected by God and your genius to your task. We do not, therefore, affect to thank you."

In his reply Kossuth appealed to Emerson to give to him and to his cause the aid of his philosophical analysis, and to impress the conviction upon the public mind that the Revolution, of which Concord was the preface, was full of a higher destiny,—of a destiny as broad as the world, as broad as humanity itself.

In that speech he anticipated Matthew Arnold in the remark, "One thing I may own, that it is, indeed, true, everything good has yet been in the minority; still mankind went on, and in going on to that destiny the Almighty designed, when all good will not be confined to the minority, but will prevail amongst all mankind." His speech at Concord was not of his best, and there are indications that his estimate of Emerson's supremacy as a philosopher and thinker subjected him to a degree of restraint which he could not overcome.

Only once, as far as I know, did Kossuth speak of himself, except as the chosen and legitimate representative of down-trodden Hungary, and that was in his parting speech in Faneuil Hall, May 14, 1852: "Some take me here for a visionary. Curious, indeed, if that man who, a poor son of the people, has abolished an aristocracy of a thousand years old, created a treasury of millions out of nothing, an army out of nothing, and directed a revolution so as to fix the attention of the whole world upon Hungary, and has beaten the old, well-provided power of Austria, and crushed its future by its very fall, and forsaken, abandoned, alone, sustained a struggle against two empires, and made himself in his very exile feared by czars and emperors, and trusted by foreign nations as well as his own,—if that man be a visionary therefor, so much pride I may be excused, that I would like to look face to face into the eyes of a practical man on earth."

In closing so much of my review of Kossuth's sojourn in Massachusetts as relates to the incident of his visit to Boston and the neighboring cities and towns, I may be permitted to devote a few lines to my acquaintance with him. To my position as Governor of the State, to the paragraph in my address to the Legislature, to my letter of invitation, and to my speech of welcome from the steps of the State House, he gave much more consideration than was deserved; and on many occasions I received evidences of his friendship and confidence.

I class Kossuth among the small number of great men, whether he be classed among orators, philosophers, students of history and government, or as an advocate of the largest range of individual freedom that is consistent with the good order of society.

The great orators have appeared and the great orations have been delivered in revolutionary periods; and this has been illustrated most strikingly when states have been menaced by the fear of transition from a constitution of freedom to a government of tyranny. Of the great orations of this class, the most significant are the orations of Demosthenes in behalf of the imperiled liberties of Greece, and the orations of Cicero in defence of his character and of his conduct in the public service, and in denunciation of the crimes by which the Republic of Rome was transformed into the Empire of the Caesars. In modern times attention may be directed to the speech of James Otis on the Writs of Assistance, to Burke's speech on Conciliation with America, to Fisher Ames' speech on the Jay Treaty, and to Webster's speech on Nullification.

In all these speeches, the ancient and modern alike, with the exception of the speech of Fisher Ames, the inspiring, the controlling sentiment is the sentiment of patriotism,—the claim to continued independence and sovereignty in an existing condition, and the claim to independence and sovereignty on the part of an aspiring people. Burke was animated by a sense of patriotic duty to Britain and by a sense of justice to her colonies in America. Fisher Ames' argumentative speech was an appeal to the sense of justice of the House of Representatives.

Of the speeches to which reference has been made, it is to be said that the circumstances in which they had their origin were local, although they may have embraced the affairs of an empire. In the main, the considerations advanced were temporary in their relations to the affairs of mankind. In its very nature patriotism is local, and the considerations by which the sentiment is stimulated relate usually to the conditions and events in the country where the sentiment is evolved. Moreover, a manifestation of the sentiment of patriotism in one people is accompanied usually with a degree of hostility to some other community or nation, and in its excesses it often fosters a disregard for the just rights of others. Nor is the sentiment or sense of justice usually universal in its application. As it is manifested in individuals and communities, it too often embodies a degree of selfishness, from which neither states nor individuals are exempt.

In like manner the words "freedom" and "liberty," in their application, have been limited to classes and castes, and to individual communities and states. The earliest and best expression of the universality of the idea of liberty belongs to America, but in America even its practical realization is a recent event. Previous to the nineteenth century, America was the only land in which it was possible to found a state freed from the domination of the church, or to establish a church free from the domination of the state; and in one half of the American continent this degree of freedom does not exist even now, when we approach the twentieth century.

Of the great orators of the world, it was Louis Kossuth who first gave to the word "liberty" the largest possible signification. Burke approached the idea, but he seemed not to comprehend its universality. In his oration on Conciliation with America he said: "In Virginia and the Carolinas they have a vast multitude of slaves. When this is the case in any part of the world, those who are free are by far the most proud and jealous of their freedom. Freedom is to them not only an enjoyment, but a kind of rank and privilege. Not seeing, then, that freedom as in countries where it is a common blessing, and as broad and general as the air, may be united with much abject misery, with all the exterior of servitude, liberty looks among them like something that is more noble and liberal."

Although Burke speaks of countries where freedom was a common blessing, it is apparent that the expression was a figure of speech rather than a statement of existing facts. Kossuth came to the Western World, not as the exponent merely of the sufferings and wrongs endured by the people of Hungary, but he announced and advocated boldly the most advanced theories of individual and national freedom, and of the mutuality of the obligations resting upon states.

Of the many speeches made by Kossuth in the United States, precedence may be given to his speech in Faneuil Hall, April 29, 1852. In that speech he announced in all its fulness his comprehensive idea of liberty: "Cradle of American Liberty! it is a great name; but there is something in it which saddens my heart. You should not say American liberty. You should say Liberty in America. Liberty should not be either American or European,—it should be just liberty. God is God. He is neither America's God nor Europe's God; he is God. So should liberty be. 'American liberty' has much the sound as if you would say 'American privilege.' And there is the rub. Look to history, and when your heart saddens at the fact that liberty never yet was lasting in any corner of the world, and in any age, you will find the key of it in the gloomy truth that all who were yet free regarded liberty as their privilege, instead of regarding it as a principle. The nature of every privilege is exclusiveness, that of a principle is communicative. Liberty is a principle,—its community is it security,—exclusiveness is its doom. What is aristocracy? It is exclusive liberty; it is privilege; and aristocracy is doomed, because it is contrary to the destiny and welfare of man. Aristocracy should vanish, not in the nations, but also from amongst the nations. So long as that is not done, liberty will nowhere be lasting on earth . . . A privilege never can be lasting. Liberty restricted to one nation never can be sure. You may say, 'We are the prophets of God'; but you shall not say, 'God is only our God.' The Jews have said so, and the pride of Jerusalem lies in the dust."

Through all his speeches the thought of the universality of liberty, and the doctrine that there is a community in man's destiny, can be discerned. His later speeches, and especially his speeches made after his tour through the South, indicate a loss of confidence in the disposition of the country to give substantial aid to the cause of Hungary, and thenceforward the loss of hope was apparent in his conversation and speeches. Indeed, before he left the country, his thoughts were directed most largely to the care of his mother, wife and sisters, who, like himself, were exiles and destitute of the means of subsistence. It is not probable that he anticipated at any time any other assistance than that which might follow an official announcement by the national authorities of an opinion adverse to interference by any state in the affairs of other states. His visit to Washington satisfied him that no such expression of opinion would be made by Congress, or by the administration of President Fillmore.

On the thirtieth day of April, 1852, Kossuth closed a speech in Faneuil Hall, which had occupied two hours and a half in its delivery, with these words: "I cannot better express my thanks than to pledge my word, relying, as I have said on another occasion of deep interest, upon the justice of our cause, the blessing of God, iron wills, stout arms and good swords, and upon your generous sympathy, to do all in my power with my people, for my country, and for humanity." Thus, as he approached the end of his career in America, he abandoned the thought of securing active interference, or, indeed, of official support in behalf of Hungary, whatever might have been his hopes when he landed in the United States.

During the period of Kossuth's visit, from December, 1851, to June, 1852, the attention of the country was directed to the approaching Presidential election, and in public speeches and in conversations he attributed his failure to secure the endorsement of Congress and of legislative assemblies to that circumstance. In his first speech in Faneuil Hall he said, "Would it had been possible for me to have come to America either before that contest was engaged, or after it will be decided! I came, unhappily, in a bad hour." That Kossuth attributed too much importance to that circumstance, there can be no doubt. Other, deeper-seated and more adverse causes were at work. The advice and instructions of Washington as to the danger of entangling foreign alliances were accepted as authority by many, and as binding traditions by all. Consequently, there was not, and could not have been, any time in the century when his appeal would have been answered by an aggressive step, or even by an official declaration in behalf of his cause.

Co-operating with this general tendency of public opinion, there existed a latent sentiment in the slave States and everywhere among the adherents and defenders of slavery that the mission of Kossuth was a menace to that peculiar institution. Of this face he was convinced by his visit to Washington and his brief tour in the slave States. At Worcester a man in the crowd had shouted, "We worship not the man, but we worship the principle." The slave-holders were interested in the man, but they feared his principles; and well they might fear his principles for he was the avowed enemy of all castes and all artificial distinctions among men. Hence it was that he was avoided by the leaders of the Democratic Party, and hence it was that his special friends and supporters were Abolitionists, Free-soilers and Anti- slavery Democrats.

This condition of public opinion and of party division was reached as early as the twenty-ninth day of April, when Kossuth said: "Many a man has told me that if I had not fallen into the hands of the Abolitionists and Free-soilers, he would have supported me; and had I landed somewhere in the South, instead of New York, I would have met quite different things from that quarter; but being supported by the Free-soilers, of course I must be opposed by the South." All this was error. If Kossuth had been spurned by the Abolitionists and Free- soilers, he would not have been accepted by the South; for there was not a quadrennium from 1832 to 1860 when that section would have contributed to the election of Thomas Jefferson to the Presidency with the weight of the Declaration of Independence upon his shoulders, as it came from his pen, had he been in existence and eligible to the office.

Support of Kossuth, by aggressive action of by official declarations against Austria and Russia, was an impossibility for the country; and an open avowal of sympathy with his opinions and principles was an impossibility for the South or for the Democratic Party.

Henceforward Kossuth's hopes were limited to pecuniary aid for himself and his family and friends, and to expressions of sympathy for his downtrodden country by individuals, by voluntary associations, and by municipalities. All his speeches after his visit to Washington were laden with one thought, viz., the duty of all free countries to resist the spread of absolutism. Pre-eminently this duty was upon America. "Republican America," said he, "and all-overwhelming Russian absolutism cannot much longer subsist together on earth. Russia active,—America passive,—there is an immense danger in the fact; it is like the avalanche in the Alps, which the noise of a bird's wing may move and thrust down with irresistible force, growing every moment."

He quoted the declaration which the elder Cato made whenever he spoke, whether in private or in public: "However, my opinion is that Carthage must be destroyed." Imitating the language and spirit of Cato, Kossuth said: "However, the law of nations should be maintained, and absolutism not permitted to become permanent."

That he exaggerated the scope of what is called the law of nations there can be no doubt. Beyond a few points, such as the recognized rule in regard to piracy, the law of nations is very indefinite, and most certainly it has but little relation, if indeed it can be said justly to have any relation, to what he called "absolutism." Moreover, it is very doubtful whether any interference by one nation in the affairs of another nation, in whatever considerate way such interference might by presented, could produce aught but evil, in arousing the passions of jealously and hostility. Had England and the United States tendered any advice even in the affairs of Austria, Hungary and Russia, such advice would have been rejected by the nations, and indignities would have been heaped upon the officious parties. All that part of Kossuth's mission to England and the United States was hopeless from the beginning, and it seems to be an impeachment of his wisdom to assume that he ever entertained the thought that either country could or would make the cause of Hungary its own, whatever might be the general or official opinion as to the justice of the contest that Hungary had carried on.

His speeches and his private conversations justify the inference that he had a hope that in some way the influence of England and the United States might be exerted effectually in behalf of Hungary, and that through that influence the activity of Russia might be arrested. Although he looked to France for aid to the cause of Hungary, he regarded the coup d'etat of Napoleon as an adverse event,—as a step and an important step in the direction of "absolutism." On one occasion he said: "Look how French Napoleonish papers frown indignantly at the idea that the Congress of the United States dared to honor my humble self, declaring those honors to be not only offensive to Austria, but to all the European powers."

Mr. Webster delivered a speech in Boston in the month of November, 1849, when it was apprehended that Russia might assume the task of demanding of Turkey the surrender of Kossuth and others, and of executing them for crimes against Austria. On that occasion Mr. Webster claimed that the Emperor of Russia was "bound by the law of nations"; and to that declaration Kossuth often referred. The full text of Mr. Webster's speech leaves upon the mind the impression that what he then called "the law of nations" was only that general judgment of the civilized nations before which the Czar of Russia "would stand as a criminal and malefactor in the view of the public law of the world." Having this declaration in mind, Kossuth said: "It was a beautiful word of a distinguished son of Massachusetts (Mr. Webster), which I like to repeat, that every nation has precisely the same interest in international law that a private individual has in the laws of his country." Mr. Webster's speech did not justify the inference which Kossuth drew from it; but the speech itself was much less reserved than that which Mr. Webster delivered in 1852, when he held the office of Secretary of State, and spoke for the administration, at a banquet given in the city of Washington in Kossuth's honor.

When Kossuth had abandoned the hope, which his intense interest in the fate of his country had inspired, that the United States might act in behalf of Hungary, he yet returned again and again to the subject. On one occasion he said; "I take it for an axiom that there exist interests common to every nation comprised within the boundaries of the same civilization. I take it equally for certain that among these common interest none is of higher importance than the principles of international law." Nor did he hesitate to say that our indifference to the spread of "absolutism" would be attended with serious and grievous consequences: "To look indifferently at these encroachments is as much as a spontaneous abdication of the position of a power on earth. And that position abandoned, is independence abandoned." He declared that neutrality did "not involve the principles of indifferentism to the violation of the law of nations"; and he attempted to stimulate the national pride by the declaration that neutrality was the necessity of weak states, like Belgium and Switzer- land, whose neutrality was due the rivalry of other powers, and not to their own will.

These appeals were in vain, although they were made in language most attractive, and although the sympathies of the people were sincere and active in behalf of Hungary. His mission was a failure, inasmuch as neither by argument, by eloquence, nor by sympathy was he able to secure an official declaration or promise of a purpose in the national authorities to interfere in the affairs of Continental Europe. Kossuth's personal wants and the necessities of his family and friends were met by the sale of Hungarian bonds and by voluntary contributions; but no substantial aid was given to Hungary in its contest with Austria and Russia.

In his many speeches Kossuth set forth his views upon national and international topics with freedom, and often with great wisdom. Said he on one occasion: "I take political economy for a science not exactly like mathematics. It is quite a practical thing, depending upon circumstances; but in certain proceedings a negative principle exists. In political economy it is not good for the people that a prohibitory system be adopted. Protection may sometimes be of service to a nation, but prohibition never." Thus did he qualify the claim of authors and students, who assert that political economy deserves rank among the sciences, whether exact or speculative, and thus did he recognize the protective theory as adapted to the condition of states while in the transition period in the development of the higher industries.

It was a favorite thought with Kossuth that England would become republican, and that the United States and republican England could lead the world in civilization and in the work and duty of elevating the masses. His influence in Hungary had been due, in a large measure, to his active agency in the work of establishing associations for the advancement of agriculture, public education, commerce, and the mechanic arts. He deprecated the opposition of the Irish in America to any and every form of alliance with England, and he did not hesitate to condemn the demand of O'Connell for the repeal of the union between England and Ireland. Said he: "If I could contribute one line more to the future unity in action of the United States and England, I should more aid the Irish than by all exclamations against one or the other. With the United States and England in union, the Continent of Europe would be republican. Then, though England remained monarchist, Ireland would be more free than it is now."

It is a singular incident in Kossuth's history, in connection with Irish affairs, that in one of his speeches he foreshadowed Gladstone's Home Rule policy,—but upon the basis of a legislative assembly for each of the three principal countries, England, Scotland and Ireland. Thus did he indicate a public policy for Great Britain that has been accepted in part by the present government,—a policy that is to be accepted by the English nation and upon the broad basis laid down by a foreigner and sojourner, who had had only limited means for observation.

"If I were an Irishman, I would not have raised the standard of repeal, which offended the people of England, but the standard of municipal self-government against parliamentary omnipotence; not as an Irish question, but as a common question to all; and in this movement all the people of England and Scotland would have joined, and there now would have been a Parliament in England, in Ireland and Scotland. Such is the geographical position of Great Britain that its countries should be, not one, but united, each with its own parliament, but still one parliament for all."

Although forty years have passed without the fulfillment of Kossuth's prophetic declaration of a public policy, its realization is not only possible, but probable. To the American mind, with our experience and traditions, such a solution of the Irish question seems easy, practicable, safe. We have States larger than Ireland, States smaller than Ireland, in which the doctrine of self-government finds a practical application. Not free from evils, not free from maladministration; but if our States are judged at half-century intervals, it will appear that they are moving with regular and certain steps towards better conditions. There is not one American State in which the condition of the people in matters of education, in personal and public morals, in industrial intelligence, in wealth and in the means of further improvement, has not been advanced, essentially, in the last fifty years. If all the apprehensions touching the evils and dangers of self-government in Ireland were well founded, there is an assurance in our experience that the people themselves would discover and apply an adequate remedy.

Kossuth was an orator; and every orator is of necessity something of a prophet. He is more than a historian who deals only with the past, illustrated with reflections, called philosophical, concerning the events of the past. With the orator those events are recalled and reviewed for encouragement or warning. The eye of the orator is turned to the future. The peroration of Mr. Webster's speech in reply to Hayne contains a prophetic description of the Civil War as it was experienced by the succeeding generation. Fisher Ames' bold prediction as to the disposition of convicts to found and to maintain good government has been realized in the history of Van Diemen's Land. Said Ames: "If there could be a resurrection from the foot of the gallows, if the victims of justice could live again, collect together, and form a society, they would, however loath, soon find themselves obliged to make justice—that justice under which they fell—the fundamental law of their state."

Nor did the spirit of prophecy desert Kossuth, in regard to Louis Napoleon. In 1852 he said: "The fall of Louis Napoleon, though old monarchial elements should unite to throw him up, can have no other issue than a republic,—a republic more faithful to the community of freedom in Europe than all the former revolutions have been."

He seemed also to foresee the unity of Italy, although he overestimated the tendency there towards republican institutions. He declared that Austria studded the peninsula of Italy with bayonets, and that she was able to send her armies to Italy because Russia guarded her eastern frontier. His residence in Italy for a third of a century was due to his admiration for the history of the Italian peoples, and his belief in the capacity of the Italian races for the business of government. "The spirit of republican liberty, the warlike genius of ancient Rome, were never extinguished between the Alps and the Faro." He declared that every stain upon the honor of Italy was connected with foreign rule, and that the petty tyrants of Italy had been kept on their tottering thrones through the intervention of Austria, Germany and France.

At the end he placed the responsibility for the domination of absolutism upon the Continent of Europe to the intervention of Russia and to her recognized supremacy in war. He appreciated the fact that Russia in coalition with Austria or Germany or France was more than the equal of the residue of the Continent, whether combined for offensive or defensive operations.

In the many speeches which Kossuth made in the United States, he endeavored to impress upon his hearers the conviction that absolutism, under which Europe was then groaning, would extend to America. This view made a slight impression only. To the common mind the ocean and the distance seemed a sufficient protection. In the lifetime of Kossuth, absolutism, both in church and state, has lost much of power on the Continent of Europe, while in America it has no abiding place.

Kossuth did not err in his opinion as to the policy of Russia in European affairs; but that policy never extended to America, even in thought. Of that policy Kossuth said: "It is already long ago that Czar Alexander of Russia declared that henceforth governments should have no particular policy, but only a common one, the policy of safety to all governments; as if governments were the aim for which nations exist, and not nations the aim for which governments exist."

Finally, he came to look upon Russia as the master of all Europe, and he sought to impress upon his hearers in America the opinion that the time would come when Russia would seek for mastery in the affairs of this continent. This apprehension on his part was not accepted by any class of his hearers and followers, and the cession of Alaska must have quieted the apprehension which had taken possession of Kossuth's mind.

In passing from so much of Kossuth's career in America as relates to his public policy and to his views upon public questions, it can be said that he entertained the broadest ideas of personal liberty and of the independence and sovereignty of states, coupled with an obligation binding all states to protect each and every state from the aggressive action of any other state.

It was his hope that England and the United States would unite, and by counsel, if not by active intervention, check, and in the end control, Russia in its manifest purpose to dominate over the Continent of Europe. This hope has not been realized. In no instance have the United States and England co-operated for the protection of any other state, and the influence of Russia on the Continent of Europe was never greater than it now is. Manifestly, England is the only obstacle to the domination of Russia over the Bosphorus.

In these forty years, Hungary has gained as a component part of the Austrian Empire, but, in the ratio of the augmentation of its power, the tendency to independence and to a republican form of government has diminished. The demonstrations that followed Kossuth's death are evidence, however, that his teachings have affected the student classes in Hungary, and it is possible that those teachings are destined to work changes in Hungary and Italy in favor of republican institutions.

Kossuth's teachings were in harmony with the best ideas that have been accepted in regard to state policy, international relations, and individual rights; but he was in advance of his own age and in advance of this age. For Europe he was an unpractical statesman, and in America he demanded what could not be granted. It does not follow, however, that his labors were in vain. He aroused the American mind to a higher sense of the power and dignity of the American nation, and he set forth the influence that England and the United States might exert in the affairs of the world whenever they should co-operate in an international public policy. He maintained the cause of universal liberty. At West Cambridge Kossuth said: "Liberty was not granted to your forefathers as a selfish boon; your destiny is not completed till, by the aid and influence of America, the oppressed nations are regenerated and made free."

These words were not wholly visionary, and in these forty years since they were uttered some progress has been made. The empires of Brazil and France have been transformed into republics, slavery has been abolished in North and South America, the weak states of Italy have been united in one government, the German Empire has been created, and all in the direction of popular liberty and with manifest preparation for the republican form of government. Nor can it be said justly that there has been a retrograde movement in any part of the world. These changes would have come to pass without Kossuth; but it is to his credit that his teachings were coincident with the trend of events, and they may have contributed to the accomplished results.

In 1849 Mr. Webster compared Kossuth to Wycliffe, by the quotation of the lines:

"The Avon to the Severn runs, The Severn to the sea; And Wycliffe's dust shall spread abroad, Wide as the waters be."

It is not easy to form an opinion of Kossuth's place as an orator, when considered in comparison or in contrast with other orators. He had but one central theme, the cause of Hungary, and on that theme he spoke many hundred times, and never with any offensive or tedious repetitions. In Massachusetts alone he delivered thirty-four speeches and orations, and it may be said that all of them were carefully prepared, and most of them were reduced to writing. His topics were the wrongs inflicted upon Hungary, the sufferings endured by his country, the dominating and dangerous influence of Russia in the affairs of Europe, the duty of England and America to resist that influence, the mission of the government and people of the United States to labor for the extension of free institutions and the blessings of liberty to the less favored nations of the world,—all made attractive by references to general, local and personal histories. As one test, and a very important test, of the presence of unusual power, it can be said that no other orator ever made so many acceptable addresses upon allied topics.

His cause did much for him. For im and for his country there was deep- seated and universal sympathy. In his case, with unimportant exceptions, there were no prejudices, or passions, or principles, or traditions, to be overcome. Our history, whether as exiles, as revolutionists, or as pioneers in the cause of freedom, contributed materially to the success of his orations and speeches. All who heard him were astonished at the knowledge of our history, both local and general, which he exhibited. When he came to the old Hancock House in Boston, he mentioned the fact without waiting for information, so carefully had he studied the features of the city in advance of his visit. There were three persons in his suite who devoted themselves to the preparation of his speeches,—Gen. Klapka, Count Pulszky and Madame Pulszky. Their knowledge of Kossuth's mind was such that they were able to mark the passages in local histories and biographies that would be useful to him in his addresses. Those of his speeches which were prepared were written by these assistants, to whom he dictated the text. By their aid he was able to prepare his speeches with a celerity that was incomprehensible to the Western mind.

His first speech in Boston was delivered the twenty-seventh day of April, 1852, the day that he completed his fiftieth year. When in private conversation I spoke of the circumstance that it was my good fortune to welcome him to the State on that anniversary, he said: "Yes, it is a marked day; but unless my poor country is saved I shall soon wither away and die."

His voice, whether in public speech or in private conversation, commanded sympathy by its tones, even when his words were not comprehended. In his oratory there was exaggeration in statement, a characteristic that is common to orators, but not more strongly marked in the speeches of Kossuth than in the speeches of those with whom he might be compared.

His powers of imagination were not extraordinary, and of word painting he has not left a single striking example,—not one passage that can be used for recitation or declamation in the schools. His cause was too pressing, his manner of life was too serious, for any indulgences in speech. In every speech he had an object in view; and even when he was without hope for Hungary in the near future, he yet announced and advocated doctrines and truths on which he relied for the political regeneration of Europe. He spoke to propositions,—clearly, concisely, convincingly.

In one oratorical art Kossuth was a adept; he deprecated all honors to himself, and with great tact he transferred them to his country and to the cause that he represented:

"As to me, indeed, it would be curious if the names of the great men who invented the plough and the alphabet, who changed the corn into flour and the flour into bread, should be forgotten, and my name remembered.

"But if in your expectations I should become a screen to divert, for a single moment, your attention from my country's cause and attract it to myself, I entreat you, even here, to forget me, and bestow all your attention and your generous sympathy upon the cause of my downtrodden fatherland."

Kossuth gave rise to just criticism in that he appealed too often and too elaborately to the local and national pride of his audiences. This criticism was applicable to his speeches in England and in America.

In every attempt to fix Kossuth's place in the list of historical orators,—and in that list he must have a conspicuous place,—certain considerations cannot be disregarded, viz.:

First, he spoke to England and American in a language that he acquired when he had already passed the middle period of life. The weight of this impediment he felt when he said, "Spirit of American eloquence, frown not at my boldness that I dare abuse Shakespeare's language in Faneuil Hall."

Second, we are to consider the amount of work performed in a brief period of time, and the conditions under which it was performed. Between the twenty-fifth day of April and the fourteenth day of May, 1852, Kossuth delivered thirty speeches in Massachusetts, containing, on an average, more than two thousand words in each speech, and not a sentence inappropriate to the occasion. These speeches were prepared and written in the intervals between the ceremonial proceedings, which occurred as often as every day.

Third, though his theme had many aspects, and these varying aspects Kossuth presented with such skill as to command the attention of his hearers, yet his theme was always the same,—the wrongs of Hungary.

On the twentieth, the twenty-fourth, and the twenty-fifth days of May, 1859, Kossuth delivered speeches in London, Manchester, and Bradford, England. The Lord Mayor presided at the meeting in London, and the meetings one and all were designed to aid the Liberal Party in the then pending general election. Kossuth's visit to England and the purpose of the visit were due to an arrangement with the Emperor Napoleon, from which Kossuth was led to expect the liberation of Hungary from the grasp of Austria as one of the essential purposes of the war in which France and Austria were engaged. As the result of an interview with the Emperor on the night of the 5th of May, Kossuth visited England in aid of the Liberal Party, and in the belief that the accession of that party to power would secure the neutrality of that country. Hence the wisdom and the duty of neutrality were the topics to which Kossuth devoted himself during his short stay in England. The Liberal Party triumphed, but the triumph was brief, and the disposition of the new ministry was not tested.

Kossuth's speeches of 1859 at the London Tavern, at a meeting presided over by the Lord Mayor, and at Manchester and at Bradford, present him at his best. He had received a pledge from Napoleon that if he could secure the neutrality of England, and would organize a Hungarian legion for service in the war with Austria, the liberation of Hungary should be regarded as a necessary condition of peace. Such, at least, was the interpretation which Kossuth put upon these words of the Emperor, spoken at the midnight meeting of May 5, 1859: "We beg you to proceed forthwith with your scheme; and be convinced that in securing the neutrality of England you will have removed the greatest obstacle that stands in the way of the realization of your patriotic hopes."

In a preliminary conversation with Prince Napoleon, held at the instance of the Emperor, Kossuth had stipulated that the Emperor should publish a proclamation to the Hungarian nation, announcing his confederation with the Hungarians as their friend and ally, and for the purpose of carrying into effect the Declaration of Independence of 1849. The obligations assumed by Kossuth were faithfully performed. General Klapka organized a legion in Italy of four thousand Hungarians. The overthrow of the Tory Party in England, which Kossuth had predicted and promised, was achieved, and thus the neutrality of Great Britain was secured.

Kossuth's speeches in England were delivered under the influence of the highest incentives by which an orator and patriot could be moved. With the utmost confidence in his ability to perform what he had promised, he had pledged his honor for the neutrality of England. As he then believed, the fate of Hungary was staked upon the fulfilment of that pledge. Hence it came to pass that his speeches in England in May, 1859, were on a higher plane than the speeches that he delivered in the years 1851 and 1852. At the former period he had no hope of immediate relief for Hungary; in 1859 he imagined that the day of the deliverance of his country was at hand, and that the neutrality of England was a prerequisite, or at least a coincident condition.

It is not too much to say that the following extract from his speech in the London Tavern justifies every claim that has been made in behalf of Kossuth as a patriot and an orator:

"The history of Italy during the last forty years is nothing but a record of groans, of evergrowing hatred and discontent, of ever- recurring commotions, conspiracies, revolts and revolutions, of scaffolds soaked in the blood of patriots, of the horrors of Spielberg and Mantua, and of the chafing anger with which the words, 'Out with the Austrians,' tremble on the lips of every Italian. These forty years are recorded in history as a standing protest against those impious treaties. The robbed have all the time loudly protested, by words, deeds, sufferings, and sacrifice of their lives, against the compact of the robbers. Yet, forsooth, we are still told that the treaties of 1815 are inviolable. Why, I have heard it reported that England rang with a merry peal when the stern inward judge, conscience, led the hand of Castlereagh to suicide; and shall we, in 1859, be offered the sight of England plunging into the incalculable calamities of a great war for no better purpose than to uphold the accursed work of the Castlereaghs, and from no better motive than to keep the House of Austria safe?

"Inviolable treaties, indeed. Why, my lord, the forty-four years that have since passed have riddled those treaties like a sieve. The Bourbons, whom they restored to the throne of France, have vanished, and the Bonapartes, whom they proscribed, occupy the place of the Bourbons on the throne of France. And how many changes have not been made in the state of Europe, in spite of those 'inviolable treaties'? Two of these changes—the transformation of Switzerland from a confederation of states into a confederated state, and the independence of Belgium—have been accomplished to the profit of liberty. But for the rest, the distinctive features through which those treaties have passed is this, that every poor plant of freedom which they had spared has been uprooted by the unsparing hand of despotism. From the republic of Cracow, poor remnant of Poland, swallowed by Austria, down to the freedom of the press guaranteed to Germany, but reduced to such a condition that, in the native land of Guttenberg, not one square yard of soil is left to set a free press upon, everything that was not evil in those inviolable treaties has been trampled down, to the profit of despotism, of concordats, of Jesuits, and of benighting darkness. And all these violations of the inviolable treaties were accomplished without England's once shaking her mighty trident to forbid them. And shall it be recorded in history that when the question is how to drive Austria from Italy, when the natural logic of this undertaking might present my own native country with a chance for that deliverance to which England bade God-speed with a mighty outcry of sympathy rolling like thunder from John O'Groat's to Land's End,—that deliverance for which prayers have ascended, and are ascending still, to the Father of mankind from millions of British hearts,—shall it be recorded in history that at such a time, that under such circumstances, England plunged into the horrors and calamities of war, nay, that she took upon herself to make this war prolonged and universal, for the mere purpose of upholding the inviolability of those rotten treaties in favor of Austria, good for nothing on earth except to spread darkness and to perpetuate servitude?

"There you have that Austria in Piedmont carrying on war in a manner that recalls to memory the horrors of the long gone-by ages of barbarism. You may read in the account furnished to the daily papers, by their special correspondents, that the rigorously disciplined soldiers of Austria were allowed to act the part of robbers let loose upon an unoffending population, to offer violence to unprotected families, to outrage daughters in the presence of their parents, and to revel in such other savage crimes as the blood of civilized men curdles at hearing and the tongue falters in relating. Such she was always—always. These horrors but faintly reflect what Hungary had to suffer from her in our late war. And shall it be said that England, the home of gentlemen, sent her brave sons to shed their blood and to stain their honor in fighting side by side with such a soldatesca for those highwayman compacts of 1815 to the profit of that Austria?"

With the treaty of Villafranca, July 11, 1859, Kossuth abandoned all hope of the independence of Hungary. There can be no doubt that, from the first, Napoleon intended to abandon Kossuth and his cause when he had made use of his influence in England and in Italy for his own purposes. The armistice and the peace with Austria were inaugurated by Napoleon; and when, at the last moment, Emperor Francis Joseph raised difficulties upon some points in the treaty, Prince Napoleon, who was a party to the conference, threatened him with a revolution in Italy and in Hungary. As to Kossuth, his only solace was in the reflection that he had stayed the tendency to revolution on the soil of Hungary, and thus his countrymen had been saved from new calamities.

Thenceforward Kossuth had before him only a life of exile; but he reserved for his children the right, and he set before them the duty, of returning to their native land.

I am giving large space to the visit of Kossuth in the belief that the country is moving away from the doctrines of self-government as a common right of mankind, as they were taught by him and as they were accepted generally until we approached the end of the nineteenth century.

In Faneuil Hall Kossuth made these striking remarks. Addressing himself to America, he said: "You have prodigiously grown by your freedom of seventy-five years; but what are seventy-five years to take for a charter of immortality! No, no, my humble tongue tells the record of eternal truth. A privilege never can be lasting. Liberty restricted to one nation never can be sure. You may say 'we are the prophets of God,' but you shall not say, 'God is only our God.' The Jews have said so and the pride of Jerusalem lies in the dust! Our Saviour taught all humanity to say 'Our Father in Heaven,' and his Jerusalem is 'lasting to the end of days.'"

His style was that of a scholar who had mastered the English language by the aid of books. His idiomatic expressions were few. In one of his speeches when urging his audience to demand active intervention in behalf of Hungary he attempted to use the phrase, "You should take time by the forelock." At the last word he came to a dead pause and substituted a twist of his own forelock with his right hand. He thus commanded the hearty cheers of his hearers. It is probable that the expedient was forced upon Kossuth, but the art of a skilled orator might have suggested such a device.

Kossuth was small in stature, not more than five feet seven inches in height, and weighing not more than one hundred and forty pounds. His eyes and hair were black, his complexion dark, giving the impression that he did not belong to the Caucasian race. His career was a meteoric display in political oratory, such as the world does not often witness. His integrity cannot be questioned, and for more than a third of a century he submitted to a life of exile rather than accept a home under a government which he thought was a usurpation. He gave to the country new ideas, and his name and fame will be traditional for a long period of time.

When Kossuth was in America he looked upon General Gorgey as a traitor and he was so regarded by the friends of Hungary generally. In the year 1885, however, a testimonial was presented to General Gorgey by about thirty of the survivors of the contest of 1848, in which they exonerated him from that charge. General Klapka was among the signers, but the name of Kossuth did not appear upon the memorial.

At the end of the nineteenth century neither Massachusetts nor any other State could or would accord to an exile for liberty the reception that was given to Kossuth in 1852.

The expenses of his reception in Massachusetts, and of the entertainment of his suite were paid by an appropriation from the public treasury. He was given a public reception by the Governor of the State, and a like reception was given to him by each House of the Legislature in suspended session.

He was further honored by a review on Boston Common of a fourth part of the organized militia of the commonwealth. The assemblages of citizens were as large in proportion to the population of the State as were ever gathered upon any other occasion.

Kossuth visited fifteen of the principal cities and towns of the State and in each of them he delivered one address or more. His theme was always the same, but his variety of argument and illustration seemed inexhaustible. At Cambridge he urged the students to so use their powers as to "promote their country's welfare and the rights of humanity."

The Legislature adopted a series of resolutions of sympathy and in condemnation of Austria and Russia. The opening resolution was in these words: "Resolved, That every nation has the right to adopt such form of government as may seem to it best calculated to advance those ends for which all governments are in theory established." Can this resolution command an endorsement at the beginning of the twentieth century?

The States of Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont adopted resolutions of sympathy with Hungary and of arraignment of Austria and Russia.

[* This chapter was published substantially as it appears here in the New England Magazine. Copyright, 1903, by Warren F. Kellogg.]

XIX THE COALITION AND THE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1853

The controversy over slavery, which wrought a division in the Whig and Democratic parties as early as the year 1848, led to a reorganization of parties in 1849, under the names of Whig, Democratic, and Free-soil parties, respectively. Of these the Whig Party was the largest, but from 1849 to 1853 it was not able to command a majority vote in the State, and at that time a majority vote was required in all elections. There was a substantial agreement between the Democratic and Free-soil parties upon the leading questions of State politics. Of these questions a secret ballot law and the division of counties for the election of senators, and the division of cities for the election of representatives, were the chief. Under the law then existing the county of Middlesex, for example, elected six senators, and each year all were of the same party. Boston was a Whig city, and each year it chose forty-six members of the House on one ballot, and always of the Whig Party. What is now the system of elections was demanded by the Democratic and Free-soil parties. The change was resisted by the Whig Party. In 1849 I was nominated by the Democratic Party for the office of Governor, and a resolution was adopted denouncing the system of slavery. In that year coalitions were formed in counties and in cities and towns between Democrats and Free-soilers, which demonstrated the possibility of taking the State out of the hands of the Whig Party, if the coalitions could be made universal. This was accomplished in 1850, and in 1851 I became Governor by the vote of the Legislature, and Mr. Sumner was elected to the United States Senate. It was the necessity of the situation that the two offices should be filled, and the necessity was not less mandatory that one of the places should be filled by a Democrat, and the other by a member of the Free-soil Party. There were expectations and conjectures, no doubt, but until the Legislature assembled in 1851 no one knew what the arrangement would be. I am sure that I had no assurance that either place would be assigned to me. The leaders of the Free-soil Party were resolute in demanding the place in the Senate, so that their views on the subject of slavery might be there set forth, and there were many Democrats who preferred the control of the State.

The coalition had control of the State for the political years of 1851 and 1852. An act was passed which provided for a secret ballot, and by another act the question of a Constitutional Convention was submitted to the voters of the State. In March, 1853, an election was held for the choice of delegates. A majority of the delegates elected were members of the Democratic and Free-soil parties.

Although I had made a resolution to retire from active participation in politics at the end of my term as Governor, I was so much committed to the objects of the Convention, and so much interested in its success, that I could not avoid giving my time to the canvass for the election of members. It happened, however, that I gave no attention to my own town, and the Whig candidate, John G. Park, was elected. My defeat was due to my action upon the liquor bill, which was enacted at the session of 1852. The Legislature passed a prohibitory law, subject to its ratification by the people by the use of the open ballot. The question of the secret ballot was one of the prominent questions between the parties, and at the session of 1851 the coalition had passed an act requiring the votes to be deposited in envelopes of uniform character and to be furnished by the State. I vetoed the bill upon the ground that if the bill was to be submitted to the people the secret ballot should be used. Thereupon the Legislature passed a similar bill without a reference to the people. The bill was passed by the help of the Whig members from Boston, who were in fact opposed to the measure, and with the design of placing me in an unpleasant position. Contrary to their expectation, I signed the bill. As a temperance man, I could not have done otherwise, although I thought it proper to submit the question to the people by the use of the secret ballot.

Many members of the Democratic Party in Groton were users of liquor, and they voted for my opponent in the contest for a delegate to the Convention. Mr. Park was a Whig, but moderate in his feelings, an upright man, and a fair representative of the Conservative feeling of the time.

It was one of the peculiarities of the call for the Convention, that each constituency could elect a candidate from any part of the State. That feature added immensely to the ability of the Convention. Hon. Henry Wilson was the candidate of the coalition in the town of Natick, but as he was not confident of an election he was a candidate also in the town of Berlin. He was elected in both towns. Mr. Sumner was elected in Marshfield, the home of Mr. Webster, Mr. Burlingame was elected for Northboro, Mr. Hallett for Wilbraham, Mr. R. H. Dana, Jr., for Manchester, and others, not less than ten in all, were elected by towns in which they did not live. This circumstance gave occasion for a turn upon words that attracted much attention at the time. It came to be known that Mr. Burlingame had never been in Northboro. Upon some question, the nature of which I do not recall, Mr. Burlingame made an attack upon the rich men of Boston, and intimated that their speedy transfer to the Mount Auburn Cemetery would not be a public misfortune. Mr. Geo. S. Hillard, in reply, referred to Mr. Burlingame as the "member who represented a town he had not seen, and misrepresented one that he had seen." Unfortunately for Mr. Hillard he lost the value of his sharp rejoinder by a statement in the same speech. Referring to Boston, where he was a practising lawyer, he said that he "would not strike the hand that fed him."

Upon the meeting of the Convention in May, Mr. Wilson resigned his seat for Berlin, and I was unanimously elected in his place. It was my fortune also to represent a town that I had not seen.

I may mention the fact that my father received a unanimous vote for the Convention in Lunenburg, the town of his residence. There were two other cases of the election of father and son as members of the Convention. Marcus Morton and Marcus Morton, Jr.; Samuel French and Rodney French.

The two great subjects of debate and of anxious thought in the Convention were the representative system and the tenure of the judicial office. It was my earnest purpose to preserve town representation and in the debate I made two elaborate speeches. It was then and upon that subject that I encountered Mr. Choate for the first time. He was a supporter, and, of course, the leading advocate of the district system. The Convention adhered to town representation in a modified form. The proposition was defeated by the vote of Boston, which gave a majority against the new Constitution of about one thousand in excess of the negative majority of the entire State.

More serious difficulties, even, were encountered in the attempt to change the tenure of judges. No inconsiderable portion of the Convention favored an elective judiciary. To that project I was opposed. By the co-operation of a number of the members of the coalition party with the Whigs the proposition was defeated. Next, a proposition was submitted by Mr. Knowlton of Worcester, to continue the appointment in the Executive Department, limiting the tenure to seven years. After an amendment had been agreed to extending the term to ten years, the proposition was adopted. With some misgivings I assented to the compromise. The attempt to change the tenure of the judges was a grave mistake, and it was the efficient cause of the defeat of the work of the Convention. Beyond this error, the defeat of the new Constitution was made certain by the course of Bishop Fitzpatrick of the Catholic Church. For many years the Irish population of Boston had acted with the Democratic Party. Upon the question of calling a Convention the adverse majority in Suffolk had been 2,800 only, but upon the question of ratifying the work of the Convention the adverse majority was nearly six thousand. To this result the influence of Bishop Fitzpatrick had contributed essentially. His reason he did not disguise. Portions of Boston were under the control of the Irish. A division of the city would open to them seats in the House and the Senate. The Bishop deprecated their entrance into active, personal politics. Hence he used his influence against the new Constitution. Such was his frank statement when the contest was over.

About the twentieth of June, when I had been a member of the Convention for twenty days only, General Banks said to me that it was the wish of our friends that I should move for a committee to prepare the Constitution for submission to the people. At that time the thought of such a movement had not occurred to me. The committee was appointed upon my motion, and, according to usage, I was placed at the head of it, and from that time I had in my own hands, very largely, the direction of the business of the Convention. As is usual, the work of the committee fell upon a few members. In this case the working members were Richard H. Dana, Jr., and myself. Marcus Morton, Jr., a volunteer, was a valuable aid. After considerable experience in other places I can say that the preparation of the new Constitution was the most exacting labor of my life. The committee were to deal with the Constitution of 1780, with the thirteen amendments that had been adopted previous to 1853, and with thirty-five changes in the Constitution that had been agreed to by the Convention. The practical problem was this:—

(1) To eliminate from the Constitution of 1780 all that had been annulled by the thirteen amendments.

(2) To eliminate from the Constitution of 1780, and from each of the thirteen amendments, all the provisions that would be annulled by the adoption of the thirty-five changes that had been agreed to by the Convention.

(3) To furnish Constitutional language for the new features that were to be incorporated in the Constitution.

(4) To arrange the matter of the new Constitution, and to reproduce the instrument, divided upon topics and into chapters and articles.

All the work under the first two heads was done by myself. The language was so much the subject of criticism and of rewriting that the responsibility for item three cannot be put upon any one. The same may be said of the work under item four; although that work was unimportant comparatively. The copy of the Constitution which was used by me in making the eliminations is still in my possession.

It is to be observed that the Convention did not furnish language in which the amendments that had been agreed to were to be expressed in the Constitution.

The resolutions, as adopted, were in the form following:

"Resolved, That it is expedient so to alter and amend the Constitution as to provide for a periodical division of the Commonwealth into equal districts on the basis of population." This form was observed in all the results reached by the Convention. The Convention had named the first day of August as the day of adjournment, and the serious work of preparing the Constitution was entered upon about the 15th day of July. The committee as a body, consisting of thirteen members, took no part in the preparation of the Constitution. It sanctioned the work as it had been done by Mr. Dana, Mr. Morton, and myself.

As my constant presence in the Convention was required, the work imposed upon me as chairman of the committee was performed in the mornings, in the evenings, and during the recesses. Thus the days from the early morning until ten o'clock at night were given to labor and without thought of eating or drinking. At ten o'clock I ate a hearty supper and then retired, always getting a sound sleep, whatever might have been the work of the day preceding.

In the last fifteen days of the session the projet of the Constitution was printed for proof-reading and for corrections twenty- four times. The record shows that there were but few changes made by the Convention, and those were formal and unimportant; and never in the canvass that followed was the suggestion made that the proposed Constitution failed to represent the mind and purpose of the Convention.

The Address to the People of the State was written by me on the last day of the Convention, August 1, 1853, and, as I now recall the events of that day, it was not submitted to the committee, although the members, by individual action, authorized me to make the report. On the same day and upon the motion of Mr. Frank W. Bird, of Walpole, the Convention adopted the following order:—

"Ordered, That the resolves contained in Document No. 128, and the Address to the People signed by the president and secretaries, be printed in connection with the copies of the Revised Constitution ordered to be printed for distribution; and that thirty-five thousand additional copies of said Constitution, with the Resolves and Address, be printed for distribution, in accordance with the orders already adopted." The Convention adjourned at ten minutes before two o'clock on the morning of August 2. The work as a whole was rejected by the voters of the State, but the mind and purpose of the Convention have been expressed during the forty-four years now ended, in the many amendments that have been engrafted upon the Constitution of 1780.

My intimate acquaintance with Mr. Choate began in this Convention. I had known him as early as 1842, when he came to Groton and made a speech in defence of the Whig Party. He was then a member of the Senate and in the fullness of his powers both intellectual and physical. In 1853 his physical system was impaired, but his intellect was as supreme as it had ever been. When I held the office of Governor I made a visit to Mr. Choate at his house. My associate was Ellis Ames of Canton. The circumstances were these. The contest with Rhode Island in regard to the boundary line had reached a crisis. When I came to office I found upon the Statute Book a resolution directing the Governor to institute legal proceedings for the purpose of fixing the boundary unless Rhode Island should agree to proceed by a new commission. As Rhode Island had remained silent, I directed the Attorney-General to execute the statute. After some time he informed me that the preparation of the bill involved a good deal of labor and that some assistance should be had. He suggested Ellis Ames who had a reputation as an equity lawyer. Mr. Ames was employed. When the bill was prepared and submitted to me, I found that a claim was made to five towns that were originally in the Plymouth Colony, but which by a decree of the King in Council had been set over to Rhode Island in 1746. I objected to the presentation of this claim and said that we should only ask that the true line should be run agreeably to that decree. Soon after the Revolution the State of Rhode Island ran the line ex parte and encroached upon the territory of Massachusetts one-fourth to three-fourths of a mile.

From that time both parties had asserted and exercised jurisdiction which had resulted in a number of controversies in the local courts. The Attorney-General lived at New Bedford near the line. The people were constantly excited, and Mr. Clifford was unwilling to accept my proposed amendment. After some delay he suggested an interview with Mr. Choate, who had been counsel for the Town of Fall River in some one or more of the controversies involving the boundary. I assented to the suggestion, and an evening was fixed for a call upon Mr. Choate by Mr. Ames and myself. The evening was a stormy one, but we made our way to Mr. Choate's house. He was in his library in the second story. It consisted of two rooms that had been connected by making an arch in the partition. The shelves were filled, and the floor was covered with books. Ames said:

"Why, Mr. Choate, what a quantity of books you have!"

"Yes," said Mr. Choate, "I have a good many books, more than I have paid for, but that is the book-seller's business, not mine."

After some time had been spent in general conversation Ames introduced the subject for which we had met, and stated the question of the claim to the five towns, to which Choate said:

"The best way is to go for enough and get what we can."

I made no remark, and the business part of the interview ended. Before we left Mr. Choate ordered a bottle of wine and made the remark:

"I keep a little wine in my house, but as for myself, I don't drink a glass once in a thousand years."

One's first impressions of Mr. Choate were never disturbed by intimate acquaintance. Many distinguished persons become insignificant upon close inspection. With Mr. Choate those who knew him best, estimated him most highly. He had no malice in his nature, and there was a genial quality in his sharpest sallies of wit.

In the Convention we had end seats. Mr. Choate occupied the seat immediately in front of me. Thus I had an opportunity for two months to observe his ways, and to enjoy his conversation. Great as were his speeches, they did not transcend his exhibitions of power in private conversation. His great speech in the Convention was upon the Judiciary System, and his description of a good judge is one of the finest paragraphs in oratory, ancient or modern. His second, or perhaps his first great work in art is his sketch of Demosthenes in his lecture on the Eloquence of Revolutionary Periods. As a specimen of essay writing it is not surpassed by any passage to be found in Macaulay.

The Convention of 1853 was the ablest body of men that ever met in Massachusetts. The Convention of 1820 included Mr. Webster, an abler man than any of the members of the Convention of 1853, but the Convention as a whole was an inferior body of men. Mr. Choate was the first man in the Convention of 1853, and he must ever remain one of the great characters of Massachusetts.

Simon Greenleaf, the author of the work on Evidence, was a member of the Convention, and his influence was considerable. He was a dry, hard-headed lawyer. His influence was due to his reputation rather than to his power as a debater. Had he come to the Convention as an unknown person, his standing would have been in the second or third class.

Richard H. Dana, Jr., added to his reputation by his speeches in the Convention. His style was free from exaggeration, and he addressed himself to the question at issue and always with effect. My intimate acquaintance with Mr. Dana began during the session of the Convention. In 1854 and 1855 I visited him and his father, the poet, at their home in Manchester-by-the-Sea. Mr. Dana, Sr., was a genial man, but reserved, and not much given to conversation. My friendship with Mr. Dana continued until General Butler became a candidate for Congress in the Essex district, and Mr. Dana became the nominee of the dissenting Republicans. That year I placed myself in the hands of the State Committee for a limited number of speeches, and by direction of the Committee, I spoke twice in the Essex district in aid of General Butler, who was the regular nominee of the party. From that time Mr. Dana avoided me, and when we met he addressed me with the coldest formality. At a meeting in this canvass held in Gloucester, I combated the charge of the Democrats that there had been many and great defalcations under Republican rule, and among other things I said the greatest defalcation was by a man who had been identified with the Democratic Party. A man in the gallery said: "Name him." I answered: —"His name is ——." "Oh," said my questioner, "I don't care anything about that! I didn't know but it was General Butler."

When General Grant nominated Mr. Dana for the English mission, I was in the Senate, and I endeavored to secure his confirmation. General Butler appeared as his opponent. The case at first turned upon his manners and his responsibility in the matter of his edition of Wheaton's International Law. In the suit instituted by Beach Lawrence, the Court had found that Dana had violated the copyright of Mr. Lawrence. I made a careful study of the case, and I flattered myself that I had satisfied the Senate that Mr. Dana's offence was merely technical, and that it ought not to interfere with his confirmation. At that moment there appeared a letter from Mr. Dana which contained an attack upon General Cameron, then a member of the Senate, and Mr. Dana's case was rendered hopeless. He secured his own defeat when his enemies were powerless to accomplish it. He was, however, very grateful to me for my effort in his behalf. The result was a heavy blow to his ambition and he resolved to prepare a new work on International Law. For that purpose he took his residence in Europe, but death came too soon for the realization of his purpose.

Mr. Dana will be remembered by his tale of the sea, "Two Years Before the Mast." He was a learned lawyer, an aristocrat by nature, and a man of eminent power. He scorned the opinions of inferior men, and therein was the cause of his failure. By a hair's breadth he failed of success in all the public undertakings of his life, excepting only his tale of the sea.

Mr. Burlingame was then an enthusiastic young man. He had had some experience in public affairs, but it could not have been predicted that he would attain the distinction which he achieved subsequently, in the field of diplomacy. He made speeches in the Convention, but they produced little or no effect upon the opinions of others. When, on an occasion, he had made an elaborate speech, his father-in-law, Mr. Isaac Livermore, said he was glad it was delivered, as Anson had trodden down all the roses in the garden while reciting it to himself. His speeches were committed, and delivered without notes.

Mr. Sumner was a conspicuous figure in the Convention of 1853, but his influence upon its business was very limited. Indeed, he seemed not to aspire to leadership. His faculties were not adapted to legislative business. He was not only not practical, he was unpractical and impracticable. Nor did experience in affairs give him an education in that particular. Of his long career in the Senate only his speeches remain. During the period of my acquaintance with him there, he introduced a large number of bills, several of them upon matters of finance, but none, as far as I can recall them, stood the test either of logic or experience. From his seat in the Senate he was able to affect and perhaps even to control the opinions of the country upon the slavery question, and thus indirectly he helped to shape the policy of the Republican Party. His knowledge of European diplomacy was far greater than that of any other Senator and greater, probably than that of any other American, excepting only Mr. Bancroft Davis. It was his good fortune to live and act in a revolutionary period. Had he fallen upon quiet times, when the ordinary affairs of men and states are the only topics of thought and discussion, his career as a public man, if such a career should have been opened to him, would have been brief and valueless alike to himself and to the public. In all his life, he was a victim to authority in affairs, and a slave to note- and common-place books.

Henry Wilson, Sumner's future colleague in the Senate of the United States, had large influence in securing the adoption of measures, but his learning was inadequate to the preparation of specific provisions of a constitution. Indeed, in his later years, he was unequal to the work of composing and writing with even a fair degree of accuracy. But his judgment of the popular feeling was unequalled, and he had capacity for shaping public opinion, whenever it was found to be hostile or uncertain, far superior to that of any of his contemporaries. He was not an orator, but his style of speaking was effective, and his speeches, as they appeared in the columns of the newspapers, would bear the test of ordinary criticism. He was a thorough politician who aimed to have things right, but who would not hesitate to use doubtful methods if thereby the right could be attained. In the year 1854 he joined the Know Nothing Party in secret, while openly he was acting with the Free-soil Party, that had placed him in nomination for the office of Governor. The result was the election of Henry J. Gardner, the candidate of the Know Nothings, as Governor, and the election of Henry Wilson to the Senate of the United States.

Of Mr. Wilson it cannot be said that he was false to friends or unfaithful to the slave. Whatever criticisms may be made upon his career in politics, he kept himself true to the one idea—the overthrow of slavery. He often vacillated in opinion upon passing questions, but at the end his votes were sound usually. As a consequence, his votes and speeches were at times inconsistent. He had a long career in the Senate, but his great service to the country was performed among the people in the canvasses. It may be said of him that at the time of his death he had spoken to more people than any one of his contemporaries or predecessors. His influence was large, although he did not often introduce any new view of a public question. He was direct in speech and he comprehended the popular taste and judgment. He was regarded as a prophet in politics. He was accustomed to make predictions, and not infrequently his predictions were verified. At the end it is to be said that a satisfactory analysis of his character cannot be made. He was not learned, he was not eloquent, he was not logical in a high sense, he was not always consistent in his political actions, and yet he gained the confidence of the people, and he retained it to the end of his life. His success may have been due in part to the circumstance that he was not far removed from the mass of the people in the particulars named, and that he acted in a period when fidelity to the cause of freedom and activity in its promotion satisfied the public demand.

Francis W. Bird had been an active member of the Coalition on the Free-soil side, and an active supporter of the project for a Constitutional Convention. It cannot be said of Mr. Bird that he did anything so well that one might say "nobody could have done better," but his zeal never flagged and hence he did much to secure results. Like Mr. Wilson, he knew every member, and he never hesitated to set forth his views. He always had a following, and in those days it was safe to follow him. In 1872 he became alienated from General Grant and consequently from the Republican Party. His influence was potential with Mr. Sumner, and it is not an over estimate of that influence to assume that he was responsible in a large degree for the defection of Mr. Sumner. Following that election, Mr. Bird became a member of the Democratic Party, but upon what ground it is not easy to conjecture. His whole life had been a protest against that party, and much of his public career had been directed to its defeat. During the war and the period of reconstruction, he had been its earnest and even bitter antagonist. Mr. Bird was a public spirited man, and he was especially liberal towards men and causes in whose fortunes or fate he had become interested. Upon the close of the war there was a tendency in the public mind to advance the successful military men to posts of honor and power in civil life. Some were chosen to the Senate and the House, some were appointed to important diplomatic places, and General Grant was elected President. Many of the politicians were disturbed, and chief among them was Mr. Chase, who allowed the use of his name as a candidate for the Presidency in the Democratic Convention of 1868. From that time many persons who had been conspicuous as anti-slavery men before the war, separated from the Republican Party and joined the Democracy. Mr. Bird was one of many such.

There were a small number of men who had been members of the Convention of 1820 who were members of the Convention of 1853. Of these Mr. Robert Rantoul, of Beverly, was conspicuous, partly on account of his age, partly on account of his services and character, and partly as the father of Robert Rantoul, Jr. He was a noticeable figure in the Convention of 1853. Mr. Rantoul, Jr., had died at Washington the preceding year. His death was a public loss, and especially so to the anti-slavery wing of the Democratic Party to which he maintained his allegiance up to the time of his death. He had, however, taken issue with the party upon the Fugitive Slave Act, and for his hostility to that measure he was excluded from the Democratic Convention of 1852, although he had been duly elected by the Democrats of the county of Essex. There can be no doubt that he would have acted with the Republican Party had he lived to the period of its organization. He was one of the three distinguished persons who were born in the county of Essex early in the century—Cushing, Choate and Rantoul. In masterly ability Choate was the chief, unquestionably. In the profession, neither Cushing nor Rantoul could compare with Choate, although in learning Cushing may have been his rival. In knowledge of diplomacy and international law neither Choate nor Rantoul could be compared to Cushing. In the modern languages he was their superior also, although it is probable that in the knowledge of Latin and Greek he was inferior to Choate. In business matters they were alike defective. In Rantoul there was a lack of continuity of purpose. He was guided by his feelings and opinions. He had the temperament of a reformer. Indeed, he was a reformer. He abhorred slavery, he made war upon intemperance, he was an advocate of reform in prison discipline, and he championed the abolition of capital punishment. In neither of these movements did Cushing or Choate take an interest. They thought slavery an evil, but they had no disposition to attack it. Alike, they feared unpleasant consequences. Choate's devotion to the Constitution was akin to idolatry.

Cushing's support of the Constitution more nearly resembled professional duty. Indeed, that peculiarity could be discovered in much of his public conduct. In service to others he was liberal to a fault. In conversation, he would make suggestions to politicians and to lawyers in aid of their views or their causes with great freedom and without apparent concern as to the effect upon parties or men. Rantoul was not able to fix his attention upon any one branch of labor. He was first of all a politician with an interest in social questions. The profession of the law was not his mistress. His arguments were clear and direct, but they lacked the quality that is near to genius. This quality Choate possessed in a degree not elsewhere found in the life or history of the American Bar. Cushing's arguments were loaded with learning and heavy with suggestions upon the general subject rather than upon the case. This of his law arguments. As I never saw him before a jury I cannot speak of his quality as a nisi prius advocate; but I cannot imagine that he could have had eminent success, and certainly he could not have had success, in the later period of his career.

Mr. Rantoul died at the age of forty-seven. Had he lived to take part in the affairs of the war and of reconstruction, there can be no doubt that he would have achieved great distinction. He had convictions in which Cushing was deficient. He had courage in civil affairs, which Mr. Choate did not possess. Of Choate it can be said, that he lived long enough to establish his claim to the first place at the American bar, if he be judged by what he said, and by what he did. Mr. Cushing had a long career. As to him, there is no room for conjecture. He had great power for acquisition. As an aid to others less well equipped his society and counsels were invaluable. He had a vast fund of knowledge in law, in history, in diplomacy, and in general literature. It was his misfortune that he early lost the public confidence, and it was a continuing misfortune that he never regained it. While it cannot be claimed that either of these three persons is entitled to a place in general history, it may be said with truth, that the birth of Cushing, Choate and Rantoul in a single county and in a single decade was an unusual circumstance in the affairs of the world.

Mr. Robert Rantoul, Sr., as the oldest member, called the Convention to order and presided until the election of Mr. Banks as president. His administration of the duties of the chair commanded the approval of the Convention, and that without regard to personal or party feeling.

The election of General Pierce to the Presidency in 1852 was fatal to the coalition in Massachusetts. Upon his accession to the office, in March, 1853, General Cushing became Attorney-General of the United States, and in the summer or autumn of 1853 he wrote a letter to a gentleman in Worcester, which was interpreted as a declaration of hostility on the part of the administration against all Democrats who affiliated with Free-soil politicians. The election of 1852 had been favorable to the Whigs of Massachusetts, but the contest was fatal to the Whig Party in a national point of view. That party disappeared in the country, and after two elections in Massachusetts, that of 1852 and 1853, it ceased to have power in the State. For many years after, there were occasional attempts to revive it, but all such attempts were vain. It was led by intelligent and well-disposed men, but its principles were not accepted by the country, and it attempted to secure the recognition of its principles by a policy that was temporizing and expedient. It lacked the courage of the old Democratic Party.

Upon the defeat of the Constitution, I turned my attention to the profession in the office of Mr. Joel Giles, with whom I had studied. He had been a lecturer at Cambridge, a member of the House and the Senate, and of the Constitutional Convention. He was a bachelor, economical in his expenditures, rigid in his opinions, just in every thing, and a most careful student and conscientious practitioner. He was a patent lawyer, and as lawyer and mechanic he was the superior of any other person that I have known. As an advocate his services were not valuable. He seemed timid, and his style was not adapted to jury trials nor to hearings by the court. However, in patent cases he could make himself understood by the court, and he had influence resting upon the belief that he was free from deception which was the fact.

Mr. Giles was then attorney for Elias Howe, the inventor of the sewing machine. He had been counsel for Howe from the first, when Howe was in extreme poverty and unable to pay fees. In the early stages of the contest Mr. Giles conducted the case without present compensation, and at the end, when Howe's income was enormous for the period, Mr. Giles accepted only very moderate fees, and he was content therewith. Mr. Howe was a peculiar character: odd in his ways, but generous with his income:—so generous that at his death his fortune was very small. In my long acquaintance with Mr. Giles I never knew that he made charges for services against any one or that he ever presented a bill, although he sometimes spoke of the indifference and neglect of his clients in the matter of money. Some paid and others did not. Mr. Howe paid all that Mr. Giles required, but that was very little compared with the service rendered. The litigation over the Howe patent was severe and the questions in a mechanical point of view were nice questions. Mr. Giles began with the invention, and he became a master of the case. Mr. Howe was indebted to Mr. Giles for the success of his litigation which established his claim to the invention, secured to him as the proceeds what might have been an enormous fortune, and placed his name in the list of the names of great inventors. The patent-law practice is the most exhausting branch of the legal profession, and the lawyers and experts suffer from brain diseases in excess of the average of sufferers in other branches of the profession.

XX THE YEAR 1854

At the session of the Legislature, January, 1854, the town of Fitchburg, aided by towns and citizens of the vicinity, petitioned for a new county to be composed of towns to be taken from the counties of Middlesex and Worcester and to be called the county of Webster. Mr. Choate was retained for the new county, and I appeared for the county of Middlesex. The hearing by the committee occupied two weeks or more, for an hour or an hour and a half a day. The fees received seem now to have been very small. It was said that Mr. Choate received the sum of five hundred dollars, and my fee was two hundred and fifty dollars. Mr. Choate obtained a favorable report from the committee, but the project failed in the Legislature. It was renewed the succeeding year, when Emory Washburn appeared for the county of Worcester. In those two contests, covering a month of time in all, I had an opportunity to study Mr. Choate in his characteristics as an advocate and as an examiner of witnesses, a branch of the profession in which he had great skill.

Various witnesses were called for the purpose of gathering facts as to the inconveniences of which complaints were made and also for the purpose of showing the advantage to be derived from the proposed change. A witness of importance and altogether friendly, was Stuart J. Park, of Groton. He was a Scotchman by birth, his father having been employed upon the Argyle estates. The father came to America while the son was a minor. They were by trade stone masons. Stuart J. Park was then nearly seventy years of age. He had represented the county in the State Senate and for many years he had been a person of note, although his education was limited. He had, however, an abundance of sound sense and an excess of will power, even for a Scotchman. In his business he had had a large and successful experience. He was the master builder of the Boston Mill Dam, of the Charlestown Dry Dock, of the State prison buildings in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, of the track of the Lowell railway, which was laid originally on granite sleepers, and of many jails in New England. Experience proved that granite sleepers were too firm and sleepers of wood were substituted.

One of the county commissioners was John K. Going of Shirley. I had known him from my youth. He was my senior by about ten years. In my boyhood he called not infrequently at my father's house, driving an old horse in a second-hand, well worn sulky. His business was trading in horses and watches, and gambling, as was reported, for small sums of money. To myself and my brothers he was held up by my mother as a warning. Before he was twenty-one years of age he had induced his father to mortgage his small homestead for four hundred dollars which John lost in unwise or unfortunate ventures. Upon that experience he began to recover his fortunes. He became a dealer in better horses, then in hops, then in real estate, and to some extent he became an operator in Boston markets. At the age of fifty he was worth, probably, two hundred thousand dollars. With the improvement of his fortunes, his character improved. He was always temperate and his agreements were carefully kept. He made ample provision for his parents, and for a sister; was a representative in the general court and for many years he was a capable and acceptable county commissioner. He was one of a not numerous class of persons who escape from evil early associations and habits of life.

In 1854 the Know Nothing Party took possession of Massachusetts. Its secrecy made it attractive to many persons. Moreover, the then existing parties were unsatisfactory to the people. The Whigs, who had been out of power in 1851 and '52, had regained power, but the vitality of the party had disappeared forever. Many of the leaders had joined the Free-soil Party, and others were indifferent to its fortunes. The Democratic Party was dissatisfied with the national administration, and the Free-soil Party was without hope. The coalition could not be repeated. In the spring or summer of 1854 General Banks asked me whether I intended to join the Know Nothings. I said No, that I had left politics and that I intended to practice law. He said in reply, "I am in politics and I must go on." The success of the Know Nothing Party was without precedent. They carried every city and town in the State, elected all the members of the Legislature, unless there may have been an accidental exception, unseated all the members of Congress, elected Henry J. Gardner Governor by an immense majority, and elected Henry Wilson to the Senate of the United States.