Chapter IV (1)

ADMISSION TO THE BAR AND EARLY POLITICAL LIFE. Law Partnership with my Brother Charles--Change in Methods of Court Practice--Obtaining the Right of Way for a Railroad--Excitement of the Mexican War and its Effect on the Country--My First Visit to Washington--At a Banquet with Daniel Webster--New York Fifty Years Ago--Marriage with Margaret Cecilia Stewart--Beginning of My Political Life--Belief in the Doctrine of Protection--Democratic and Whig Conventions of 1852--The Slavery Question--My Election to Congress in 1854.

After I was admitted to the bar I felt the natural elation of one who had reached the end of a long journey after weary waiting. I spent two or three weeks in visiting my relatives in Dayton and Cincinnati, attending the courts in those cities, where I observed closely the conduct of judges and lawyers in the trial of cases, and returned to Mansfield full of confidence, and with a better opinion of myself than I have entertained since.

The first object I sought to accomplish was the removal of my mother and her two unmarried daughters, Susan and Fannie, from Lancaster to Mansfield. At this time all her sons were settled at homes distant from Lancaster, and her other daughters were married and scattered. By an arrangement between my brothers, Charles and Tecumseh, and myself, I was to keep house with mother in charge, Susan and Fannie as guests. This family arrangement was continued until Susan and I were married and mother died.

To return to my admission to the bar. I felt that I was now a man. I had heretofore banked mainly on the treasures of hope. My brother, Charles Sherman, admitted me as an equal partner in his lucrative practice, and thus I gained a foot-hold in the profession. Fortunately for me, his timidity required me to attend stoutly contested cases brought to us. The old distinction between law and equity proceedings was then preserved, and Charles was a very good equity counselor. With this line of distinction between us we never had any difficulty in arranging our business, or in dividing our labor. He was then agent and attorney for New York and eastern creditors, the confidential adviser of our leading business men, and the counselor of a very interesting sect, then quite numerous in Richland county, called Quakers, or Friends, who could not conscientiously take the usual oath, but in witnessing all necessary legal papers, and in contests, made their affirmations. There was, therefore, left to me the pleadings, oral or written, and the struggle of debate and trial. The practice of the bar in Ohio had greatly changed from that of the early decades of this century. As I have stated, the judges, in the earlier decades, accompanied by leading lawyers, mounted on horses, went from county to county and disposed of the docket. The local lawyers had but little to do. Now all this is changed. Each county has its bar and its leading lawyers, and only when the case is of great importance a "foreign" lawyer is called in. The change has been caused by the abnormal growth of population. In 1830 the total population of the state was only 938,000, that of many of the counties being very small. In 1850 the population had more than doubled, amounting to 1,980,000. In 1890 it was 3,672,000, well distributed among the counties according to their capacity for supporting this increase.

Other remarkable changes have also taken place during the same period. The entire mode of conducting business in early days has been abandoned. Cash payments and short accounts have taken the place of barter and credit. The Ohio banking law of 1846, followed and superseded by the national banking act of 1863, produced a radical change in the forms, credit and solvency of paper money, and, more than any other cause, has encouraged the holding of small savings of money in savings banks and like institutions. These favorable conditions tended to limit credits, to encourage savings, and to change the vocation and habits of lawyers.

Changes in methods have also affected the legal profession. The adoption of a code of laws, and of new and simple pleadings, rendered useless half the learning of the old lawyers, driving some of them out of practice. I knew one in Mansfield who swore that the new code was made by fools, for fools, and that he never would resort to it. I believe he kept his word, except when in person he was plaintiff or defendant. Yet, the code and pleadings adopted in New York have been adopted in nearly all the states, and will not be changed except in the line of extension and improvement.

These reforms, and the many changes made in the organization of our state and federal courts, have to a considerable extent lessened the fees and restricted the occupation of lawyers. But it can be said that the leading members of the legal profession proposed and adopted these reforms, and always advocated any legislation that tended to simplify and cheapen litigation and at the same time protect life, property or reputation.

While these causes were operating against lawyers, agents of nature, hitherto unknown, undiscovered, and wonderful, were being developed, which were to completely revolutionize the methods of travel, the transportation of goods, and the modes of production, thus opening new fields for the employment of lawyers. Instead of assault and battery cases, suits for slander and the collection of debts, the attention of lawyers was directed to the development of railroads, banking institutions and other corporations.

The construction of railroads caused a most remarkable revolution in the habits and industries of our people. The first built in Ohio ran from Lake Erie or the Ohio River, north or south into the center of the state. Among them was the Sandusky & Mansfield road, originally a short line from Sandusky to Monroeville, intended to be run by horse power. It was soon changed to a steam road, the power being furnished by a feeble, wheezing engine, not to be compared with the locomotive of to-day. It was then extended to Mansfield, and subsequently to Newark, but was not completed until 1846. It was built of cross-ties three feet apart, connected by string pieces of timber about six by eight inches in dimensions, and a flat iron bar two and one-half inches wide and five-eighths of an inch thick. The worthlessness and danger of such a railroad was soon demonstrated by innumerable accidents caused by the spreading of rails, the "snaking" of the flat bars of iron through the cars, and the feebleness of the engines. Both road and engines soon had to be replaced. In every case which I recall the original investment in the early railroads was lost.

It was thought when the first railroad from Sandusky to Mansfield was completed that the road would save the farmer five or six cents a bushel on his wheat in its transit to the lake, and yield a handsome profit to the stockholders of the railroad. That was the great benefit anticipated. No one then thought of the movement by railroad, over vast distances, of grain, stock, and merchandise, but regarded the innovation as a substitute for the old wagon trains to the lake.

The construction of this railroad was considered at that time a great undertaking. It was accomplished mainly by the leading business men of Mansfield, but the road turned out to be a very bad investment, bankrupting some and crippling others. I was employed by the company to collect the stock and to secure by condemnation the right-of-way from Plymouth to Mansfield. Much of the right-of-way was freely granted without cost by the owners of the land. As the chief benefit was to inure to the farmers, it was thought to be very mean and stingy for one of them to demand money for the right-of-way through his farm. I went over the road from Mansfield to Plymouth with a company of five appraisers, all farmers, who carefully examined the line of the railroad, and much to my mortification, assessed in the aggregate for twenty miles of railway track, damages to the amount of $2,000. I honestly thought this an exorbitant award, but the same distance could not be traversed now at a cost for right-of-way of ten times that sum.

The present admirable roads in Ohio have been built mainly by the proceeds of bonds based upon a right-of-way.

In the meantime other railroads of much greater importance were being built, and the direction of the roads, instead of being north and south was from east to west, to reach a business rapidly developing west of Ohio of far greater importance than the local traffic of that state.

Among the most valuable of these railroads was the Pittsburg, Ft. Wayne & Chicago, now a part of the system of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, by which it is leased. This road was built in sections by three different corporations, subsequently combined by authority of the legislatures of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. The first section was the Pittsburg & Ohio railroad from Pittsburg to Crestline, twelve miles west of Mansfield.

There is perhaps no more remarkable material development in the history of mankind than that of railroads in the United States since 1845. The number of miles of such roads is now 171,804.72, the actual cost of which with equipment amounting to $9,293,052,143. The value of these railroads and their dependent warehouses and stations is probably greater to-day than the value of the entire property of the United States in 1840.

Contemporaneous with railroads came the telegraph, the cable, and the telephone. The first telegraph wire was strung between Baltimore and Washington in 1844. The first telegraph line through the State of Ohio was from Cleveland via Mansfield to Columbus and Cincinnati, and was established in 1848. At the close of the session of the Supreme Court at Mansfield in that year, Judge Hitchcock, who presided, asked me the road to Mt. Gilead, in Morrow county, a county then recently created. I pointed to the telegraph wire stretched on poles, and told him to follow that. The old Judge, who had been on the supreme bench for over twenty years was quite amused at the directions given. He laughed and said he had been mislead by guideboards all his life, and now he was glad to be guided by a wire.

The development and changes, soon after my admission to the bar, turned somewhat the tide of my hopes and expectations. Our firm soon lost the business of collecting debts for eastern merchants by the establishment of numerous and safe banks under the state act of 1846. Several of the old banks, especially those at Wooster, Norwalk, and Massillon had utterly failed, and, I believe, paid no part of their outstanding notes. The new banks, founded upon a better system, one of which was at Mansfield, rapidly absorbed the collections of eastern merchants from the part of Ohio in which we lived. This loss was, however, more than made good by our employment as attorneys for the several railroads through Richland county. My brother gradually withdrew from his business in Mansfield, and became the general attorney for the Pittsburg, Ft. Wayne & Chicago Railroad.

In the meantime I had taken a junior part in the trial of several cases in which I was greatly favored by Mr. Stewart, the most eminent member of his profession at Mansfield. He gave me several opportunities for testing my qualities before a jury, so that I gradually gained confidence in myself as a speaker.

My Uncle Parker was then judge of the Court of Common Pleas. So far from favoring me on account of my relation to him, he seemed to wish to demonstrate his impartiality by overruling my pleadings or instructing the jury against me. I am quite sure now that this was fanciful on my part, for he was universally regarded as being an excellent example of a just judge without favor or partiality.

During the early period of practice at the bar I studied my cases carefully and had fair success. I settled more cases by compromises, however, than I tried before a jury. I got the reputation of being successful by full preparation and a thorough knowledge of the facts and law of the case. In addressing a jury I rarely attempted flights of oratory, and when I did attempt them I failed. I soon learned that it was better to gain the confidence of a jury by plain talk than by rhetoric. Subsequently in public life I preserved a like course, and once, though I was advised by Governor Chase to add a peroration to my argument, I did not follow his advice. While I defended many persons for alleged crimes I never but once prosecuted a criminal. My old friend, Mr. Kirkwood, was the prosecuting attorney of the county, and I renewed with him my "moot court" experience in frequent contests between real parties.

During this period I became a member of the order of Odd Fellows in Mansfield. I took an active interest in the order, and was at one time Noble Grand of the lodge. I have continued every since to pay my dues, but have not been able to attend the meetings regularly for some years. I have always thought, without any reference to its supposed secrecy, that it is an association of great value, especially in bringing young men under good social influences with men of respectable character and standing.

Among the political incidents of this period I recall the excitement that grew out of the Mexican War. The general feeling among all classes, and the universal feeling among the Whigs was, that the Mexican War was purposely and unjustly entered upon to extend the institution of slavery. There is, now, no doubt that such was the object of the war. After the battles at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma a call was made upon the people of Ohio for two regiments of volunteers. These were raised without much difficulty, one being placed under the command of Col. Thomas L. Hamer, the other under my old commander, Col. Samuel R. Curtis. I was somewhat tempted to enter the service, though I did not believe in the justice of the war. My old friend, Gen. McLaughlin, raised a company in Mansfield, and my comrade on the Muskingum Improvement, James M. Love, raised one in Coschocton, and Col. Curtis was to command the regiment. My brother, William Tecumseh, then captain in the regular army, was eager to go into the war. He had been stationed at Pittsburg, on recruiting service, but during the excitement visited us at Mansfield, and chafed over the delay of orders to join the troops, then under General Taylor. No doubt his impatience led him to be assigned to the expedition around Cape Horn to occupy California, this, greatly to his regret, keeping him out of the war with Mexico.

Whatever may have been the merits of this war in the beginning, its fruits were undoubtedly of immense value to this country. Without this war California might, like other provinces of Mexico, have remained undeveloped. In the possession of the United States its gold and silver have been discovered and mined, and, together with all the vast interior country west of the Mississippi, it has been developed with a rapidity unexampled in history.

In the winter of 1846-7, I for the first time visited the cities of Washington, New York and Boston. I rode in a stage coach from Mansfield to the national road south of Newark, and thence over that road by stages to Cumberland, the railroads not having yet crossed the mountains. From Cumberland I rode in cars to Baltimore, occupying nearly a day. From Baltimore I proceeded to Washington.

On my arrival I went to the National Hotel, then the most popular hotel in Washington, where many Senators and Members lodged. I found there, also, a number of charming young ladies whose company was much more agreeable to me than that of the most distinguished statesmen. We had hops, balls and receptions, but I recall very few public men I met at that time. Mr. Vinton, then the veteran Member from Ohio, invited me to join for a few days his mess; he was then boarding in a house nearly opposite the hotel, kept by an Italian whose name I cannot recall. He was a famous cook. The mess was composed entirely of Senators and Members, one of the former being Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky. I was delighted and instructed by the free and easy talk that prevailed, a mixture of funny jokes, well-told stories and gay and grave discussions of politics and law.

My stay at the capital was brief as I wished to go to New York and Boston. In New York I received from a relative a letter of introduction to Benj. R. Curtis, then an eminent lawyer, and latterly a more eminent justice of the Supreme Court. When I presented my letter I was received very kindly and after a brief conversation he said he was able to do me a favor, that he had a ticket to a grand banquet to be attended by the leading men of Boston at Plymouth Rock, on the anniversary of the landing of the Pilgrim Fathers, and that Daniel Webster would preside. I heartily thanked him, and on the next day, prompt on time, I entered the train at Boston for Plymouth. When I arrived at the hotel, which is also a station- house of the railway, I did not know a single person in the great assemblage. In due time we were ushered into the dining hall where the banquet was spread. There was no mistaking Webster. He sat at the center of a cross table with the British minister on his right and Jeremiah Mason on his left. At the other end of the room sat Abbott Lawrence and other distinguished men. The residue of the guests, merchants, poets, and orators of Massachusetts, filled every seat at the tables. I sat some way down on the side and introduced myself to my neighbors on the right and left, but my eye was on Webster, from whom I expected such lofty eloquence as he alone could utter.

Much to my surprise, when the time came for the oratory to commence, Mr. Lawrence acted as toast master. We had stories, songs, poetry and oratory, generally good and appropriate, but not from Webster. And so the evening waned. Webster had been talking freely with those about him. He displayed none of the loftiness associated with his name. He drank freely. That was manifest to everyone. His favorite bottle was one labeled "Brandy." We heard of it as being "more than a hundred years old." It did not travel down to us. Webster was plainly hilarious. At this time the conductor appeared at a side door and announced that in fifteen minutes the cars would start for Boston. Then Webster arose--with difficulty --he rested his hands firmly on the table and with an effort assumed an erect position. Every voice was hushed. He said that in fifteen minutes we would separate, nevermore to meet again, and then, with glowing force and eloquence, he contrasted the brevity and vanity of human life with the immortality of the events they were celebrating, which century after century would be celebrated by your children and your children's children to the latest generation.

I cannot recall the words of his short but eloquent speech, but it made an impress on my mind. If his body was affected by the liquor, his head was clear and his utterance perfect. I met Mr. Webster afterwards on the cars and in Washington. I admired him for his great intellectual qualities, but I do not wonder that the people of the United States did not choose him for President.

Soon after the national Whig convention of 1852, of which I was a member, I heard this story told by his secretary. In the evening, when Mr. Webster was at his well-known residence on Louisiana Avenue, near Sixth street, he was awaiting the ballots in the convention. When it came by the telegraph, "Scott 159, Fillmore 112, Webster 21," he repeated it in his deep tones and said: "How will this read in history?" He did not like either Scott or Fillmore, and was disappointed in the votes of southern members. To be third in such a contest wounded his pride. He died before the year closed. He was, perhaps, the greatest man of intellectual force of his time, but he had faults which the people could not overlook. Another incident about Mr. Webster, and the house in which he lived, may not be without interest. On New Year's day of 1860, Mr. Corwin, Mr. Colfax and myself made the usual calls together. Among the many visits we made, was one on a gentleman then living in that house. As we entered, Mr. Corwin met an old well-trained negro servant who had been a servant of Mr. Webster in this house. I noticed that Mr. Corwin lost his usual gayety, and as we left the house he turned to us, and, with deep emotion, asked that we leave him at his lodgings, that his long associations with Mr. Webster, especially his meetings with him in that house during their association as members of the cabinet of Fillmore, unfitted him to enjoy the usual greetings of the day. I felt that the emotion of such a man as Corwin was the highest possible compliment to the memory of Daniel Webster.

From Boston I returned to New York. There, in the families of two brothers of my mother, both then living, I had a glimpse of New York society. With Mr. Scott, the son-in-law of my uncle, James Hoyt, I made nearly one hundred of the usual New Years' visits, then customary in New York. This custom I am told has been abandoned, but the New York of to-day is quite different from the New York of 1847. It still retained some of the knickerbocker customs of the olden time. The site of the Fifth Avenue Hotel was then a stone- yard where grave stones were cut. All north of Twenty-third street, now the seat of plutocracy, was then sparsely occupied by poor houses and miserable shanties, and the site of Central Park was a rough, but picturesque body of woodland, glens and rocky hills, with a few clearings partly cultivated. Even then the population of New York was about 400,000, or more than three-fold that of any city in the United States, and twenty-fold that of Chicago. Now New York contains 2,000,000 inhabitants, and Chicago, according to recent reports, about 1,700,000. Many cities now exist containing over 100,000 inhabitants, the sites of which, in that year, were within the limits of Indian reservations.

From New York I returned to Washington. Many incidents recur to me but they were of persons now dead and gone, the memory of whom will not be recalled by the present generation. Mr. Polk was then President. He was a plain man, of ordinary ability and more distinguished for the great events that happened during his presidency than for anything he did himself. I attended one of his receptions. His wife appeared to better advantage than he. I then saw Mr. Douglas for the first time. I think he was still a Member of the House of Representatives, but had attained a prominent position and was regarded as a rising man. I wished very much to see Henry Clay, the great favorite of the Whigs of that day, but he was not then in public life.

There was nothing in Washington at that time to excite interest, except the men and women in public or social life. The city itself had no attractions except the broad Potomac River and the rim of hills that surrounded the city. It then contained about 30,000 inhabitants. Pennsylvania avenue was a broad, badly paved, unattractive street, while all the other streets were unpaved and unimproved. All that part of the city lying north of K street and west of Fourteenth street, now the most fashionable part of the city, was then a dreary waste open, like all the rest of the city, as free pasturage for cows, pigs, and goats. It was a city in name, but a village in fact. The contrast between Washington then and now may be referred to hereafter.

Upon my return from the east in February, 1847, I actively resumed the practice of the law. I was engaged in several important trials, but notably one at Mount Vernon, Ohio, where the contesting parties were brothers, the matter in dispute a valuable farm, and the chief witness in the case the mother of both the plaintiff and defendant. It was, as such trials are apt to be, vigorously contested with great bitterness between the parties. Columbus Delano was the chief counsel for the plaintiff, and I was his assistant. I remember the case more especially because during its progress I was attacked by typhoid fever. I returned home after the trial, completely exhausted, and on the Fourth of July, 1847, found myself in a raging fever, which continued more than two months before I was able to rise from the bed, and then I was as helpless as a child. I was unable to walk, and was lifted from the house into the carriage to get the fresh air, and continued under disability until October, when I was again able to renew my business.

During my practice thus far, I had been able to accumulate in property and money more than ten thousand dollars. I had, in addition to my practice, engaged in a profitable business with Jacob Emminger, a practical mechanic, in the manufacture of doors, blinds and other building materials. We acquired valuable pine- lands in Michigan and transported the lumber to our works at Mansfield. We continued this business until I was appointed Secretary of the Treasury, in March, 1877, when I sold out my interest and also abandoned the practice of the law.

I spent the winter of 1847-8 at Columbus, where I made many acquaintances who were of great service to me in after life, and had a happy time also with the young ladies I met there. Columbus was then the headquarters of social life for Ohio. It had a population of about fifteen thousand, with few or no manufactures. It has now a population of more than one hundred thousand, the increase being largely caused by the great development of the numerous railroads centering there, and of the coal and iron mines of the Hocking Valley. It was also the natural headquarters of the legal profession, the Supreme Court of Ohio, then under the old constitution, and the District Court of the United States holding their sessions there.

On the first day of August, 1848, my grandmother, Elizabeth Stoddard Sherman, died at Mansfield at the residence of her daughter, Mrs. Parker. Her history and characteristics have already been referred to. She was to our family the connecting link between the Revolutionary period and our times. She had a vivid recollection of the burning of the principal towns of Connecticut by the British and Tories, of the trials and poverty that followed the War of the Revolution, of the early political contests between the Federalists and Republicans, of the events of the War of 1812, and of her journey to Ohio in 1816. She maintained a masterly care of her children and grandchildren. She was the best type I have known of the strong-willed, religious Puritan of the Connecticut school, and was respected, not only by her numerous grandchildren, but by all who knew her.

My brother-in-law, Thomas W. Bartley, was District Attorney of the United States during the administration of Mr. Polk, and, as he expected a change would be made by the incoming administration of Taylor, he advised me to become a candidate for his place, as that was in the line of my profession. I told him I doubted if my experience of the bar would justify me in making such an application, but he thought differently. I wrote to Mr. Ewing upon the subject and he answered as follows:

"Washington, D. C., Dec. 31, 1848.
"John Sherman, Esq., Mansfield, Ohio.

"My Dear Sir:--I believe you would be able to perform the duties of District Attorney, but your youth would be an objection to your appointment, and in competition with one so long known, and so highly esteemed, as Mr. Goddard is both professionally and politically, would probably make your prospects but little encouraging. If you conclude to withdraw your name, signify the fact and the reason by letter to Mr. Goddard and it may be of use to you hereafter. I am, with great regard,

"Yours, T. Ewing."

I complied with his advice, though Mr. Goddard, I think, declined and Mr. Mason was accepted.

On the thirty-first of the same month I was married to Margaret Ceclia Stewart, the only child of Judge Stewart, whom I had known since my removal to Mansfield. She had been carefully educated at the Female College at Granville, Ohio, and at the Patapsco Institute, near Baltimore, Maryland. After the usual wedding tour to Niagara Falls, Montreal and Saratoga, we settled in Mansfield, and I returned to my profession, actively pursuing it until elected a member of Congress.

It is not worth while to follow my professional life into further detail. I shall not have occasion to mention that subject again. Sufficient to say that I was reasonably successful therein. During this period Henry C. Hedges studied law with my brother and myself, and when admitted to the bar became my partner. Mr. Stewart was elected by the legislature a judge of the Court of Common Pleas, and after the adoption of the new constitution of 1851, he was elected by the people to the same office.

I had determined in the fall of 1853 to abandon Mansfield and settle in Cleveland, then rapidly growing in importance as the leading city in the northern part of the state. I went so far as to establish an office there and place in it two young lawyers, nominally my partners, but the great political currents of that time soon diverted me from the practice of the law into the political contests that grew out of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

"The direful spring of woes unnumbered."

Before entering upon an account of my political life it seems appropriate for me to state my political bias and position. I was by inheritance and association a Whig boy, without much care for or knowledge of parties or political principles. No doubt my discharge from the engineer corps by a Democratic Board of Public Works strengthened this bias. I shouted for Harrison in the campaign of 1840. In 1842 I was enthusiastic for "Tom Corwin, the wagon- boy," the Whig candidate for Governor of Ohio. In that canvass Governor Corwin addressed a great meeting at Mansfield. I heard his speech, and was full of enthusiasm. Mr. Corwin was certainly the greatest popular orator of his time. His face was eloquent, changeable at his will. With a look he could cause a laugh or a tear. He would move his audience at his pleasure. I vividly remember the impression he made upon me, though I cannot recall anything he said. At the close of the meeting I was requested by the committee in charge to take Mr. Corwin in a buggy to Bucyrus. This I cheerfully did. I noticed that Mr. Corwin was very glum and silent, and to cheer him up I spoke of his speech and of the meeting. He turned upon me, and with some show of feeling, said that all the people who heard him would remember only his jokes, and warned me to keep out of politics and attend to my law. He told me that he knew my father, and was present at his death at Lebanon, where he, Mr. Corwin, lived. And then, brightening up, he gave me an interesting account of the early settlement of Ohio, and of the bar and bench, and of his early life as a wagon boy in Harrison's army. His sudden fit of gloom had passed away. I do not recall any circumstance that created a deeper impression on my mind than this interview with Mr. Corwin. His advice to keep out of politics was easy to follow, as no one could then dream of the possibility of a Whig being elected to office in Richland county, then called "the Berks of Ohio." Mr. Corwin was defeated at that election.

I took but little part in the campaign of 1844, when Mr. Clay was a candidate for President, but I then made my first political speech to a popular audience and cast my first vote. The meeting was held at Plymouth, and Honorable Joseph M. Root, the Whig candidate for Congress, was to be the orator. For some reason Mr. Root was delayed, and I was pressed into service. Of what I said I have not the remotest recollection, but my audience was satisfied, and I was doubly so, especially when Mr. Root came in sight. After that I made a few neighborhood speeches in support of the Whig candidate for governor, Mr. Mordecai Partley, a gentleman who for several years had lived in Mansfield, but had long since retired from public office after eight years' service in the United States House of Representatives. Mr. Bartley received 147,378 votes, Mr. Tod, Democrat, 146,461 votes and Mr. King, Third Party, 8,411 votes; so close were parties divided in Ohio in 1844.

At this time I had but two definite ideas in respect to the public policy of the United States. One was a hearty belief in the doctrine of protection to American industries, as advocated by Mr. Clay, and, second, a strong prejudice against the Democratic party, which was more or less committed to the annexation of Texas, and the extension of slavery. I shared in the general regret at the defeat of Mr. Clay and the election of Mr. Polk. I took some part in the local canvasses in Ohio prior to 1848, but this did not in the least commit me to active political life. I was appointed a delegate to the national Whig convention, held in Philadelphia, in 1848, to nominate a presidential candidate. I accepted this the more readily as it gave me an opportunity to see my future wife at her school at Patapsco, and to fix our engagement for marriage upon her return home. The chief incident of the convention was the struggle between the friends of General Scott and General Taylor.

When the convention was being organized, Colonel Collyer, chairman of the Ohio delegation, said there was a young gentleman in that convention who could never hope to get an office unless that convention gave him one, and nominated me for secretary of the convention. Mr. Defrees said there was a delegate from Indiana in the same condition and moved that Schuyler Colfax be made assistant secretary. We then marched together to the platform and commenced our political life, in which we were to be closely associated for many years.

The nomination of General Taylor, cordially supported by me, was not acceptable to all the Whigs of Ohio. The hostility to slavery had grown chiefly out of the acquisition of Texas as a slave state. An anti-slavery party headed in Ohio by Salmon P. Chase cast 35,354 votes for Van Buren. General Taylor was defeated in Ohio mainly by this defection, receiving 138,360 votes. General Cass received 154,755 votes. General Cass received the vote of Ohio, but General Taylor was elected President, having received a majority of the electoral vote.

General Taylor proved a very conscientious and acceptable President. His death, on the ninth day of July, 1850, preceded the passage of the compromise measures of Henry Clay, commonly known by his name. They became laws with the approval of Millard Fillmore.

It was my habit during this period to attend the annual state conventions of the Whig party, not so much to influence nominations as to keep up an acquaintance with the principal members of the party. I had not the slightest desire for public office and never became a candidate until 1854. In the state convention of 1850 I heartily supported the nomination of General Scott for President, at the approaching election of 1852. In this convention an effort was made to nominate me for Attorney-General in opposition to Henry Stanbery. I promptly declined to be a candidate, but received a number of votes from personal friends, who, as they said, wanted to introduce some young blood into the Whig party.

I then began seriously to study the political topics of the day. I was classed as a conservative Whig, and heartily supported the compromise measures of 1850, not upon their merits, but as the best solution of dangerous sectional divisions. Prior to this time I do not remember to have given any study, except through the newspapers of the day, to the great national questions that divided the political parties.

In the spring of 1852 I was designated by the state convention as a delegate at large in association with Honorable Samuel F. Vinton to the national Whig convention of that year. I was an earnest advocate of General Scott, and rejoiced in his nomination. Here, again, the slavery question was obtruded into national politics. The clear and specific indorsement of the compromise measures, though supported by a great majority, divided the Whig party and led to the election of Franklin Pierce. In this canvass I took for the first time an active part. I was designated as an elector on the Scott ticket. I made speeches in several counties and cities, but was recalled to Wooster by a telegram stating that my mother was dangerously ill. Before I could reach home she died. This event was wholly unexpected, as she seemed, when I left home, to be in the best of health. She had accompanied her daughter, Mrs. Bartley, to Cleveland to attend the state fair, and there, no doubt, she was attacked with the disease of which she died. I took no further part in the canvass.

I wish here to call special attention to the attitude of the two great parties in respect to the compromise measures.

The Democratic national convention at Baltimore was held in the first of June, 1852. The resolutions of that convention in reference to slavery were as follows:

"12. _Resolved_, That Congress has no power under the constitution to interfere with, or control, the domestic institutions of the several states, and that such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts of the Abolitionists or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friends of our political institutions.

"13. _Resolved_, That the foregoing proposition covers, and is intended to embrace, the whole subject of slavery agitation in Congress, and, therefore, _the Democratic party of the Union, standing on this national platform, will abide by, and adhere to, a faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measures settled by the last Congress, 'the act for reclaiming fugitives from service labor' included; which act, being designed to carry out an express provision of the constitution, cannot, with fidelity thereto, be repealed, nor so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency_.

"14. _Resolved, That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing in Congress, or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made_."

The Whig convention, which met at Baltimore on the 16th of June, 1852, declared as follows:--

"8. _That the series of acts of the 32nd Congress, the act known as The Fugitive Slave Law included, are received and acquiesced in by the Whig party of the United States as a settlement in principle and substance of the dangerous and exciting questions which they embrace, and so far as they are concerned, we will maintain them, and insist upon their strict enforcement_, until time and experience shall demonstrate the necessity of further legislation to guard against the evasion of the laws on the one hand, and the abuse of their powers on the other--not impairing their present efficiency; and we _deprecate all further agitation of the question thus settled as dangerous to our peace, and will discountenance all efforts to continue or renew such agitation whenever, wherever or however the attempt may be made_, and we will maintain the system as essential to the nationality of the Whig party and the integrity of the Union."

It will be noticed that these platforms do not essentialy differ from each other. Both declare in favor of acquiescence in the compromise measures of 1850. The Democratic party more emphatically denounces any renewal in Congress, or out of it, of the agitation of the slavery question under whatever name, shape or color, the attempt may be made. The Whig platform, equally positive in its acquiescence in the settlement made, known as the compromise measures, declared its purpose to: "Maintain them, and to insist upon their strict enforcement until time and experience shall demonstrate the necessity of further legislation to guard against the evasion of the laws."

It would seem that under these platforms both parties were committed to acquiescence in existing laws upon the subject of slavery, and to a resistance of all measures to change or modify them.

I took quite an active part in this canvass and wrote to Mr. Seward, then the great leader of the Whig party, inviting him to attend a mass meeting in Richland county, to which I received the following reply:

"Auburn, Sept. 20, 1852.
"John Sherman, Esq., Mansfield, Ohio.

"Dear Sir:--I have the honor of receiving your letter urging me to accept the invitation of the Whig central committee to address a mass meeting in Richland county, Ohio, on the second of October. I appreciate fully the importance of the canvass in which we are engaged, and I have some conception of the responsibilities of the Whigs of Ohio. I wish, therefore, that it was in my power to comply with the wishes, expressed in several quarters, by going among them to attempt to encourage them in their noble and patriotic efforts, but it is impossible. Public and professional engagements have withdrawn me from my private affairs during the past two years, and the few weeks of interval between the last and the next session of Congress are equally insufficient for the attention my business requires and for the relaxation of public labors which impaired health demands. I am, dear sir, with great respect, you friend and humble servant,

"William H. Seward."

The election of 1852 resulted in the overwhelming defeat of General Scott, and the practical annihilation of the Whig party. Franklin Pierce received 244 electoral votes, and General Scott but 42.

The triumphant election of Mr. Pierce, on the platform stated, justified the expectation that during his term there would be no opening of the slavery controversy by the Democratic party. If that party had been content with the compromise of 1850, and had faithfully observed the pledges in its platform, there would have been no Civil War. Conservative Whigs, north and south, would have united with conservative Democrats in maintaining and enforcing existing laws. The efforts of the opponents of slavery and of aggressive pro-slavery propagandists would have been alike ineffective. The irrepressible conflict would have been indefinitely postponed. Yet, as will appear hereafter, the leaders of the 33rd Congress of both parties, and mainly on sectional lines, openly and flagrantly violated the pledges of their party, and renewed a contest that was only closed by the most destructive Civil War of modern times, and by the abolition of slavery. As this legislation brought me into public life, I wish to justify my statement by the public records, with all charity to the authors of the measures who no doubt did not anticipate the baleful events that would spring from them, nor the expanded and strengthened republic which was the final result. "Man proposes, but God disposes."

When the 33rd Congress met, on the 6th day of December, 1853, the tariff issue was practically in abeyance. The net ordinary receipts of the government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1853, were $61,587,031.68. The net ordinary expenditures of the government for the same year were $47,743,989.09, leaving a surplus of revenue over expenditures of $13,843,042.59, of which, $6,833,072.65 was applied to the payment of the public debt, leaving in the treasury, unexpended, about $7,000,000.00. The financial and political condition of the United States was never more prosperous than when this Congress met. The disturbance of this condition can be attributed only to the passage of the act to organize the territories of Nebraska and Kansas approved by President Franklin Pierce, May 30, 1854. The 32nd section of that act contained this provision:--

"That the constitution and all laws of the United States which are locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Kansas as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March sixth, eighteen hundred and twenty, which, being inconsistent with the principle of non- intervention by Congress with slavery in the states and territories, as recognized by the legislation of eighteen hundred and fifty, commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the United States: _Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of March sixth, eighteen hundred and twenty, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting or abolishing slavery."

This act contained a similar clause relating to Nebraska.

To understand the effect of this provision it is necessary to review the status of slavery in the United States under the constitution and existing laws.

The articles of Confederation make no mention of slavery or slaves. During and after the Revolution the general feeling was that slavery would be gradually abolished by the several states. In the Ordinance of 1787 for the government of the territories of the United States, northwest of the Ohio River, it was expressly provided that:

"There shall be no slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted; provided, always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any of the original states, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid."

This provision applied to all the territory of the United States that was subject to the jurisdiction of the Continental Congress.

The constitution of the United States did not mention either slaves or slavery. Its two provisions relating to the subject were the following:

"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand, eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. . . .

"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

The first clause quoted was intended to enable Congress to prohibit the introduction of slaves after the year 1808, and this was promptly done. The second provision was intended to authorize the recapture of slaves escaping from their owners to another state. It was the general expectation of the framers of the constitution that under its provisions slavery would be gradually abolished by the acts of the several states where it was recognized.

The first great controversy that grew out of slavery was whether Missouri should be admitted into the Union as a slave state, and whether slavery should exist in the western territories.

The following provision became part of the law of March 6, 1820, approved by President James Monroe, and known as the compromise measure of that year:

"That, in all that territory ceded by France to the United States under the name of 'Louisiana,' which lies north of 36 deg. 30 min. north latitude, not included within the limits of the state contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly conviced, shall be and is hereby, forever prohibited: _Provided, always_, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any other state of territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service, as aforesaid."

This compromise measure fixed the boundary line between free and slave states in all the territories then belonging to the United States. Slavery was thus forever prohibited within the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska. This happy solution was regarded as something more than a mere enactment of Congress. It was a territorial division between the two great sections of our country, acquiesced in by both without question or disturbance for thirty- four years. The memorable controversy that arose in the 31st Congress in 1850 in respect to the territory acquired from Mexico did not in the least affect or relate to the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas. The subject-matter of the several bills originally embraced in Mr. Clay's report of the committee of thirteen, defined the northern boundary of the State of Texas on the line of 36 deg. 30 min. north latitude, provided for the addition of the State of California, for territorial governments for New Mexico and Utah, and for the surrender of fugitive slaves.

In the resolution annexing Texas to the United States there is this express recognition of the Missouri Compromise line:

"New states of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of the said state, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be _entitled to admission_ under the provisions of the Federal constitution; and such states as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying _south_ of 36 deg. 30 min. north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise line, _shall be_ admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each state asking admission may desire."

The convention providing for the admission of California expressly stipulated by a unanimous vote that slavery should be forever prohibited in that state. The bill providing for a territorial government for New Mexico, the great body of the territory which lay south of the parallel of latitude 36 deg. 30 min., provided, "That, when admitted as a state, the said territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission."

The act organizing the Territory of Utah, lying entirely north of the 37th degree of latitude, contains no provision recognizing the right of the people of that territory to permit slavery within its borders. The situation of the state and its population precluded the possibility of establishing slavery within its borders.

It will be perceived by the compromise measures of 1820 and 1850, the existence or prohibition of slavery was fixed by express laws, or by conditions which it was fondly believed defined the limits of slavery, and thus set at rest the only question that threatened the union of the states. This settlement was indorsed and ratified by the two great parties in their national platforms of 1852, with the solemn pledge of both parties that they would resist the re- opening of these questions.

The Senate of the 33rd Congress was composed of 36 Democrats, 20 Whigs and 2 Free Soilers. The House was composed of 159 Democrats, 71 Whigs, and 4 Free Soilers, with Franklin Pierce as President of the United States.

I need not narrate the long struggle in both Houses over the bill to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas. It was a direct invitation for a physical struggle between the north and south for the control of these territories, but it finally passed on the 30th of May, 1854.