Chapter I (2)

No words can too strongly describe the high repute in which is held the business house of which Col. Strong is the head. It is among the most prominent, popular and successful in the trade. It represents some of the largest mills in this country engaged in the manufacture of dress goods, flannels, blankets and other woolens and worsteds, also important accounts in cotton goods. It has branch houses in Boston and Philadelphia for the supply of the trade in those markets. The firm was organized January 1, 1870, as above stated, and has continued in uninterrupted and successful operation ever since. Through all the panics and business disturbances that have visited this country at various periods since 1870, the house passed in safety with increased business prestige and financial strength. The able business management of this large commission house is proverbial in mercantile circles.

All that has been said in the above, in commendation of the house of which Col. Strong is the visible head, may be truthfully repeated of himself in his personal relations. His connection with many enterprises of importance in the business community and his prominent position in the same, are evidences of the business ability which he possesses and which his associates have so practically recognized. Modest and unassuming, his clear and analytical mind grasps the problems of business with such skill that fortune has smiled upon every enterprise with which he is or has been associated. His connection with so many financial institutions as director or president, further attests the confidence of the public in his integrity and marked ability.

While his business qualifications are of very high order, there are other traits in the character of Col. Strong that are no less marked. He is a man of the people, and his sympathies are wholly with the people. No worthy object to relieve or to make the struggling masses happy, ever fails to receive from him the substantial sympathy which his broad mind and liberal heart so freely give. He is an American, in every sense of the term. Plain and simple in his habits, he frowns upon everything that seeks to make one man higher than another, except as merit or exceptional service, have elevated him. He is, as one has well said, “One of the few men equal to the occasion, wherever placed, and deservedly possesses the entire confidence of the people.”

HON. GEORGE HOADLY, EX-GOVERNOR OF OHIO.

George Hoadly, who has won at the bar of New York, a position of eminence equal to that he for years maintained in Ohio, is, in all the essentials of affection and personal loyalty, yet an “Ohio man,” for he remembers the home of his youth, the scene of his early labors and professional advancement, and the State that chose him to the highest position within her gift. Like General Ewing and Col. Strong, he is already a well-known figure in the metropolis, and is one of the men by whose labors the Ohio Society has been made what it is.

If a man is aided by the “sort of grandfathers” he has inherited, Judge Hoadly had as fair a start as is given anyone. The older lawyers of Ohio speak with tender remembrance of “Squire Hoadly,” who for years was one of the imposing figures of the bar of Cleveland, and whose purity of character was matched only by his legal knowledge, and the justice with which, in his magisterial character, he arbitrated the affairs of his fellowmen. He made Cleveland his home in 1830; served one term as Mayor, and for fifteen years as justice of the peace, then an office of greater honor and responsibility than in these days of multiplied minor and municipal courts.

The son, George Hoadly, was born in New Haven, Connecticut, on July 31, 1826, of a mother (Mary Anne Woolsey), who counted Jonathan Edwards among her direct ancestors, President Dwight her uncle, President Woolsey her younger brother, Theodore Winthrop, Sarah Woolsey, (“Susan Coolidge,”) her nephew and niece. Carried to Ohio when but four years of age, his primary education was received in the private school, conducted by the late Franklin T. Backus, afterwards the leader of the Cleveland bar, and Judge William Strong of Oregon. When fourteen years of age he entered Western Reserve College, at Hudson, Ohio, from which he was graduated in 1844. It had already been impressed upon him by natural bent of mind and inclination, and by the advice of those who had studied his character and watched his growth, that the law was his proper profession, and he accordingly spent a year in study at the famous law school at Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he was under the instruction of Judge Story and Prof. Greenleaf. One more year of close study was passed in the office of Judge Charles C. Convers, at Zanesville, Ohio, and then young Hoadly went to Cincinnati, and in the fall of 1846 entered the law office of Chase & Ball, where he completed his studies, and was admitted to the bar in August of the following year. An incident of more than passing moment in his personal and professional life grew out of this connection. “Young Hoadly,” says one of the governor’s biographers, “at once attracted the attention and secured the warm and lasting friendship of his preceptor, Salmon P. Chase, afterwards Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, who was well aware of the importance of attaching to himself young men of ability, and, after a period of service as a clerk, Mr. Hoadly was admitted, in 1849, as a junior partner into the firm, which took the name of Chase, Ball & Hoadly. Mr. Chase was soon thereafter elected United States Senator, and withdrew from professional activity in Cincinnati, and this led to Hoadly’s appearing in important cases very early in his career.”

Strong and able in his profession, and popular with the people, the young lawyer’s way to official distinction was soon opened. In 1851, the State Legislature elected him Judge of the Superior Court of Cincinnati, for the residue of the term to which that court had been limited by the constitutional convention. He ably served in this position until 1853, when the court ceased its functions, and he then formed a co-partnership with Edward Mills. He was city solicitor of Cincinnati in 1855, and 1856, and became a member of the present Superior Court in 1859. Twice was he offered a seat upon the Supreme Bench of Ohio, but each time he declined. In 1856, the proffer came from Governor Chase, and in 1862 from Governor Tod. In 1864 he was re-elected to the bench, but resigned in 1866, at which time the firm of Hoadly, Jackson & Johnson was formed. The late Judge Alphonse Taft was his successor upon the bench. The new combination was soon ranked among the great law firms of the country, and Judge Hoadly was classed as one of the ablest and soundest of American jurists. Of this period of his life, an historian of Ohio has said: “They (the above mentioned law firm), have successfully tried some of the great railroad cases of the day, and are as noted in these cases in Ohio as was Samuel J. Tilden in New York ten years ago in litigation of the same kind. Judge Hoadly has also appeared as counsel in the most important litigations of other kinds tried in Ohio of late years, having among others conducted victoriously the cases involving the use of the Bible in the common schools of Cincinnati, the constitutionality of the Pond and Scott laws, and in the United States Supreme Court overthrown the Federal trade-mark system, and compelled the State of Tennessee to redeem the issues of the Bank of Tennessee.”

A position where his peculiar legal powers were called into play, and his knowledge of constitutional law and readiness in debate made him a leader, was his membership in the Ohio constitutional convention of 1873-4, to which he was elected without opposition from Hamilton County. Yet while engaged in the manifold duties of his profession, he found time to engage in other fields of usefulness, serving as professor in the Cincinnati Law School, a chair of which he held for over twenty years; a trustee of the University of Cincinnati, and of the Cincinnati Museum; member of the Committee of the School of Design; and was in other ways the patron of the arts and sciences, and a promoter of their development in his home city. Among other self-imposed tasks, he made himself acquainted with the Spanish and German languages, and became as he calls himself “a poor stenographer.”

While Judge Hoadly had thus far allowed his name to be used only in connection with official positions directly in the line of his profession, and while he had little taste and less time for the practical part of politics, he still held pronounced views upon public questions, and carefully watched the drift of events. He was from the first a Democrat—as his father had been before him—a believer in democratic principles as enunciated by the founders of the party who were among the greatest of the founders of our government. And being a Democrat to the logical conclusions of democracy, he took issue with his party upon the question of human slavery. During the war, he acted politically with the Union elements; when peace was restored and the slave freed, he took part in the Liberal Republican movement of 1872, and was a member of the Cincinnati convention, and of its Committee on Resolutions, but disapproved of the nomination of Mr. Greeley with whom he had no political principles in common except hatred of slavery and belief in hard money. He withdrew from the convention immediately after the nomination was made, and entered into correspondence with leading Democrats, endeavoring to bring about the nomination of a Democratic candidate whom he stood ready to support. Failing in this, he reluctantly voted for Grant’s second election.

In 1876, Judge Hoadly earnestly entered into the movement known to contemporary history as “Tilden and Reform,” believing that the interests of the country would be best subserved by the election of Tilden and Hendricks. In the memorable legal contest that ensued, before the electoral commission, the Democratic Committee invited Judge Hoadly to argue the Oregon and Florida cases before that body, which he did in such manner as to make national a reputation for legal ability that had heretofore been largely confined to his own portion of the West. This probably caused his call to the (temporary) presidency of the Democratic National Convention of 1880.

One of the immediate but unpremeditated fruits of this political activity came in 1883, when Judge Hoadly was named by the Democrats of Ohio as their candidate for governor. He entered upon the canvas with activity, and his speeches at Hamilton and Piqua, were reported and eagerly circulated by the Democratic State Committee as campaign documents. After making some ten speeches, he was unfortunately stricken with malarial fever, which prevented his continuing upon the stump until the last week of the campaign. Although not yet entirely recovered, he was able to appear in Cleveland, Sandusky, Toledo and Dayton, addressing immense audiences with marked effect. A campaign that had of necessity lagged because of the absence of its chief, took on a new vigor, the Democratic heart was fired anew, and George Hoadly became Governor of the State by the emphatic majority of 12,529 over Judge Foraker, the Republican nominee. Not only this, but the close counties went Democratic, a legislature was secured, and Henry B. Payne, the life-long friend of Governor Hoadly’s father, was sent to represent Ohio in the United States Senate.

It is a matter of settled historical opinion, that the Buckeye State, with all its famous governors, was never possessed of a better chief magistrate than the one whose administration opened under such favoring influences. A knowledge of the needs of the state, gained from long acquaintance, a wisdom that could be made effective in practical affairs, calm judgment, and an eye that could look higher than the levels of mere partisanship, were among the things that aided him; and “the greatest good to the greatest number” was the principle that inspired all his acts.

A renomination was, of course, a foregone conclusion. In 1885, the Democratic State Convention proclaimed by acclamation that George Hoadly should again become its candidate for governor. He accepted, although knowing that Ohio was then practically a Republican State, and that one man could hardly expect to accomplish the miracle of permanent Democracy. Judge Foraker was once more the Republican choice, and in the fall election was chosen by a vote of 359,281 to 341,830 for Hoadly; the Rev. A. B. Leonard, the Prohibition candidate receiving 28,081, and John W. Northrup, the Greenback candidate 2,001 votes. Although the defeat was decisive, it was sweetened to Governor Hoadly by the fact that in 1885, as in 1883, he ran ahead of his ticket, being defeated by the smallest, and, in 1883 elected by the largest plurality given against or for any of the gentlemen upon the same ticket.

When Governor Hoadly saw his successor duly inaugurated, he cheerfully returned to the active labors of his profession, in Cincinnati, where he remained until March, 1887, when the call to the chief city of the Union came in such shape that it could not be ignored. His practice had extended into such fields that the removal was almost a necessity, and his health demanded a change of climate. He located in New York, and became a partner in the firm of Hoadly, Lauterbach & Johnson—a firm that stands in the front rank, and that has an immense clientage, not only in New York, but all through the country. His chief thought and ambition since then has been in his profession. In the spring of 1890, Governor David B. Hill appointed him a member of the commission to revise the judiciary article of the constitution of New York, but because of professional engagements which detained him in the trial of a case in Detroit, Michigan, during the entire spring and summer months of that year, he was compelled to decline the appointment.

In recent years, Judge Hoadly has been honored by the degree of Doctor of Laws, conferred by Yale College in 1885, by Dartmouth College in 1889, while his own college, once Hudson but now Adelbert, gave him the same title some years ago. He is a Free Mason, a Knight Templar, and has taken the 33rd degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish rite, and has always performed anything in his power to advance the interests of the order.

Of Judge Hoadly’s professional life in New York, much might be said, were this the place to say it. Outside of that, little can be said, for he has had time for little else. As “an Ohio man” he is always at home to any Buckeye neighbor, or impression, or memory that connect him with the days and scenes of his youth and early manhood. He may be seen occasionally in the gatherings of the Ohio Society, and when there, he is not allowed to remain in his seat unheard. Few men are as approachable in any walk of life; few men more companionable when he can command leisure for companionship. His friendships are strong, his decisions intuitive, his principles those of his honored ancestors, and Jonathan Edwards’ severe theology has had little reflection in his generous religious views. A single phrase might sum up his whole life and character: A typical American jurist and gentlemen.

JAMES HARRISON KENNEDY.

FOOTNOTES

[10] “The founding of Ohio,” an address of Senator George F. Hoar, at Marietta, Ohio, April 7, 1888.

DE SOTO’S CAMPS IN THE CHICKASAW COUNTRY IN 1540-1.

North Americans will probably always take a special interest in the adventures of the army of the Spanish commander De Soto, apart from the general charm of the subject, for it is to the chronicles of the same that they are indebted for the very earliest accounts of the Indian nations, who, in the sixteenth century inhabited the territory now comprising the southeastern quarter of the United States.

The route pursued by the expedition during the years 1539 to 1543 has long been the subject of much discussion, but no satisfactory conclusions have been arrived at concerning the matter as a whole. Indeed there can scarcely be said to be a single point on the entire line of march which has been established beyond cavil. It is not now my intention to add to the mass of general comment, but merely to treat of a certain point of the route which personal enquiry and exploration in the field have enabled me to make up my mind about in all surety.

This point is the location of the particular village of the Chickasaws in northeastern Mississippi, where De Soto went into camp on December 17, 1540, and of the smaller village to the northward whither he retreated about the first week in the ensuing March, after the fierce night attack of the natives which almost ruined the Spaniards.

Before proceeding to give my own conclusions as to the true position of these villages, it is but proper to furnish an abstract of the descriptions given by the old writers, together with the opinions of the modern historians of Mississippi and of other people now inhabiting the northeastern counties of the State. The various authorities (excepting the popular views) will be quoted in the order in which they have appeared in printed form before the world.

The anonymous “Gentleman of Elvas” one of the Portuguese volunteers, an eye-witness, comes first. His work, the “True Relation” etc., appeared in 1557. He says that Chicaza was a small town of twenty houses, and that the land was thickly inhabited, and that it was fertile, the greater part being under cultivation. Also that the Spaniards removed from that town where they wintered to the one where the cacique was accustomed to live, half a league off, because it was in the open country, on a prairie favorable for them.

The second authority is Garcilaso de la Vega, “the Inca,” who, however, was only a compiler, writing in 1591, from information given by three separate members of the little army. His book, “La Florida del Ynca” etc., first appeared in 1605. It furnishes a more elaborate account of the Chicaza transactions than the proceeding one, and to the following effect. The place had two hundred fires and was situated on a hill extending north and south, which was watered by many little brooks covered with nut, oak, and other similar trees. In order to lodge more commodiously they built themselves houses with wood and straw that they procured from the neighboring villages. Three days after the fight referred to, the General ordered the force to advance a league, search for wood and straw, and build a town to be named Chicacilla.

Factor Biedma’s account of the expedition, first published (in French) in 1841, is a very brief one. In the Chicaza affair, Buckingham Smith (1866) renders his words as stating that the army moved to “a cottage about a mile off.”

Nor does the abridged journal of Rodrigo Ranjel, De Soto’s private secretary, which was not printed till 1851, afford any information as to the first town. But he relates how the Spaniards, after their defeat, at once went to a savana or prairie a league off, where they erected huts and barracks, and established camp on a declivity and hill.

As may be easily supposed the next Europeans to visit that region, the English and French traders and soldiers of the eighteenth century, had more urgent matters to attend to than the verification of historical statements, for no mention of De Soto or the expedition is made in their scanty writings or reports on this region, and apparently the Chickasaws had forgotten all about his invasion. The American settlers of nearly a century later were still less likely to know about the matter, for the De Soto expedition can scarcely be said to have become known to people in general in the United States till after the publication of Theodore Irving’s interesting book in 1835.

Searching next in all accessible modern histories and books, the first attempt at definite localizing that I can find is in the appendix to the Smithsonian Report for 1867. The Rev. Samuel Agnew, writing from Guntown, Mississippi, under date of January 11, 1868, states that twelve years before, there had been pointed out to him on a long ridge between John’s Creek and Friendship Church, in Pontotoc County, the remains of ancient ditches or embankments. These he surmised might probably be the remains of De Soto’s winter camp, but he hoped that some intelligent antiquarian would look further into the matter.

The most comprehensive attempt however, to identify these camps, was made by Hon. J. F. H. Claiborne, in his “Mississippi as a Province” etc., published in 1880. In this book he wrote that:—

“There (the old Indian trail) struck Pontotoc ridge, four miles east of the ancient Chickasaw Council House. Near this point stood the first Chickasaw town, and in this vicinity the Spaniards went into winter quarters.

“At that period a portion of the Chickasaws still resided in the mountain region of east Tennessee, but a large body of them had taken possession of the territory where De Soto found them, and their principal settlement or town, or series of villages, was on the ridge from the ancient Council House (near Redland) north fifteen miles (near Pontotoc) and northeast, on the ‘mean prairie’ eight or ten miles, within a few miles of Tallahatchie River....

“Four miles east of the ancient Council House, on the Pontotoc ridge, near the source of the Suckartonchee Creek, are the vestiges of a fortified camp, evidently once strongly entrenched, after the European style of that day, with bastions and towers. Leaden balls and fragments of metal have been often found in these ruins. The enclosure was square, and the whole area, as evidenced by the remains, would have afforded shelter to the Spaniards and their live stock.... The chief of the Chickasaws resided about two miles southeast of the present town of Pontotoc, on the head-waters of Coonawa, now called Pontotoc Creek.... The exact position of this entrenched camp is still indicated by the vestiges that remain. Some persons contend that De Soto left this stronghold, advanced to Chickasilla, one mile northwest from where Pontotoc now stands, and commenced the attack on the Chickasaw towns. This would be to reverse the detailed accounts of the writers that accompanied him.... After the destruction of their camp, the Spaniards moved three miles to the village of Chickasilla, where they were annoyed by desultory attacks.”

In forming his opinions on the matter, Claiborne acknowledged his indebtedness to W. J. N. Walton of Aberdeen, Mississippi, a gentleman who “in early life was secretary of Levi Colbert, head chief of the Chickasaws, familiar with their language and with all their traditions,” and to W. B. Wilkes of the same place, a man whose tastes inclined him to archaeological pursuits. It is with diffidence therefore, that I venture to disagree with these conclusions, in my own statement.

As to the ideas of the farmers and others living in the old Chickasaw County, there is no uniformity of opinion as to the site of Soto’s camps. There are many local candidates for that honor, and so far as I could find out, there is no good reason to adopt one more than another. The place pointed out to Mr. Agnew is probably the site of Mound Builder’s work, of which class of remains there is no lack in northern Mississippi.[11] The same may be said of the position assigned to Chicaza by Claiborne, though the locality he means is rather to the southeast of Redland and in Chickasaw County.

The Chicaza of Soto’s time was on a high ridge or hill located about one mile northwest of Redland, on the S½ of the S¼ of Section 21, and the N½ of the N W½ of Section 28, town 11, range 3E. in Pontotoc county. The hill extends north and south, and on both sides there are many little spring branches flowing out of the base of the hill and uniting with the larger streams at a distance of from one to four or five rods. The main part of the town was located on Section 28. A part of it is under cultivation and has farm buildings upon it, while the remainder of the site is covered by young timber and brush.

Many years ago there was an Indian mission school that is said to have been located where the farm building now stands. In the new ground broken up within recent years, there were beds of charcoal and ashes found at different points, and even in the old portion of the cultivated land charcoal is occasionally brought to the surface by the plough. These are undoubtedly remains of old Chicaza, and the beds of charcoal and ashes mark the sites of the houses burned by the Indians. As regards the location, there is no other place in either Lee or Pontotoc counties—where the oldest Chickasaw settlements were undoubtedly situated—that corresponds to the topographical description given by the Inca.

Chicacilla was probably located on the S E¼ of Section 5, town 11, range 3 E., about 3½ miles north and a very little west of Chicaza. At this point there is debris, etc., indicating that there was once an old Chickasaw village there. The narratives of the expedition, however, do not give sufficient data regarding this site, so that it is impossible to fully identify the place by them, there being nothing beyond the statement already quoted that it was located on a sloping hill, a league distant from Chicaza. This being the only ancient Chickasaw village site properly lying on sloping ground, and at about the right distance from the burned town; it is more than probable that the position given above is the correct one. It is presumable that after the place was abandoned by the Spaniards, the Indians took possession of it, and occupied the houses in lieu of those destroyed by both parties. Besides this, it supplied them with a well fortified (palisaded) town in which to re-establish themselves.

At these two towns of Chicaza and Chicacilla, there are no vestiges of fortifications or entrenchments of any description, in fact there are none to be found in any of the Chickasaw old towns (or “fields”) that can be identified. It is probable that the fortified towns described in the De Soto and the early French expeditions were merely wooden walls or palisades, for otherwise there would be traces of them still remaining, so that at least some of them could be recognized as such.

The above conclusions were incidentally arrived at in the course of some archaeological explorations made in January and February 1891, in the former country of the Chickasaws, and may be considered as a contribution to some future revision of the generally accepted route of De Soto and his little army east of the Mississippi.

T. H. LEWIS.

FOOTNOTES

[11] Continuous wet weather and the resulting flooded state of the country prevented the writer from visiting the Agnew locality, which he had intended to examine like the others.

CHICAGO PIONEERS.

HON. ISAAC N. ARNOLD.

Isaac Newton Arnold was born at Hartwick, near Cooperstown, Otsego Co., New York, Nov. 30, 1813. His father George Washington Arnold was a physician of honorable standing, and the family in America dates back to the earliest settlement of New England, some of its members being associates of Roger Williams and other sterling men, who established in Rhode Island the first real Republic that ever gladdened the hearts of men with its assertion and protection of liberty and independent, sovereign manhood. The natural surroundings of his youth—the romantic scenery of Otsego County, with its beautiful lakes and extensive forests, so delightfully picturesque—were well calculated to develop a strong and noble manhood. Amidst this beauty of nature and comparative solitude, the man who was to make such a success of life drank in inspiration and learned to love the pure and the beautiful. Early thrown upon his own resources, self-made and self-reliant, he reached a position of greatness, through a career of usefulness, honor and integrity. His early education was obtained in the country schools and the village academy. From seventeen to twenty years of age he employed his time in teaching half the year and in attending school the other half, his revenue from teaching enabling him to support himself in his pursuit of an education. Ultimately he began to prepare himself for the profession in which he afterwards achieved such a notable success. Reading law in the offices of Richard Cooper and Judge Morehouse of Cooperstown, Mr. Arnold was admitted to the bar in 1835, and after practicing for a brief time as a partner of Judge Morehouse, he came to Chicago in 1836, and at once began that illustrious professional career which placed him among the foremost jurists not only of Illinois, but of the nation. It is scarcely possible to have a more graphic and faithful picture of a life than was drawn by Hon. E. B. Washburne in his eloquent eulogy of Mr. Arnold before the Chicago Historical Society. He said: “During all the active years of a long and well-spent life, Mr. Arnold has been a citizen of Chicago, contributing by his indefatigable industry, his unimpeachable integrity, his patriotism, his public spirit, his rare abilities, his great acquirements, his spotless moral character, his high social qualifications and instincts as a thorough gentleman to give lustre to the city of his residence and to the generation to which he belonged; a successful lawyer that stood in the front ranks of his profession; a cautious, far-seeing and wise legislator, distinguishing himself in the halls of legislation, national as well as state; a successful public speaker and a writer of great power and wide-spread popularity, he has left to the generations that succeed him the legacy of a noble example and a noble name.”

Mr. Arnold was enrolled at the bar of the Supreme Court in Illinois Dec. 9, 1841, and in that same year he became counsel in a case which established his ability as a lawyer and brought him prominently before the profession. It was a time of great business depression, and a recreant legislature had passed an act of repudiation of public debts and providing that unless the property of a judgment debtor should bring two-thirds of its appraised value, it should not be sold under execution. Mr. Arnold was a determined opponent, of such legislation, and being employed by a New York judgment creditor to enforce his claim against a debtor, he attacked the constitutionality of the act, carried the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the case came on in January, 1843. Mr. Arnold presented an irrefutable written argument and Chief Justice Taney in one of the ablest and most elaborate opinions ever delivered in the court, sustained the position of the counsel for the appellant. Mr. Arnold was a powerful advocate whether before court or jury. He was exceedingly pains-taking in the preparation of his cases—which is half the battle with the lawyer—and before a jury he had no superior. As one of his associates at the bar has put it: “He was a learned lawyer, a jurist in the same sense of the term, and for more than thirty years stood at the head of the Chicago bar.”

In 1842 he was elected to the Lower House of the Illinois General Assembly. There were in that body at this time many men of distinction and marked ability, but none that were superior to the subject of this sketch. In 1844 Mr. Arnold was again elected to the House. At the close of this session of the legislature in 1846, Mr. Arnold retired from public life, and did not re-enter it until 1856. In politics he had been a Democrat, and in 1844 was a presidential elector on the Polk ticket. But becoming indignant at the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, he became what was known as an anti-Nebraska Democrat and in 1856, at the urgent solicitation of the anti-Nebraska Democrats and Republicans of Cook County, he again consented to become a candidate for the House of Representatives in the State Legislature. This was at the time that Bissel was elected Governor and his right to take the seat was challenged by the Democrats on the ground that he once accepted a challenge to fight a duel. Mr. Arnold championed the Governor’s cause, and his speech in his defense not only really settled the question, but gave him a high reputation over the whole State, marking him as one of the ablest public men of the time.

In the historical election at which Abraham Lincoln was first elected President of the United States, Mr. Arnold was elected a representative in the Thirty-seventh Congress from the Chicago district. That Congress met in extra session, July 4, 1861, and has passed into history as one of the most notable and momentous events in the life of the Republic. The Administration at the time was confronted by an open rebellion against the National authority, and it was for this session of Congress to determine just what should be done in the premises. Mr. Arnold had long known Mr. Lincoln, and between the two men there was a warm feeling of regard, and perhaps no man took his seat in this memorable session upon whom the President placed greater reliance than he did upon Mr. Arnold. The respect that was generally entertained for his abilities was evidenced by the fact that he was selected to pronounce the eulogy on the occasion of the death of Stephen A. Douglass. The regular session of the Thirty-seventh Congress met on the second day of December, 1861, at a time when the country was fully plunged into the midst of civil war. Mr. Arnold took his seat in the House, and at once entered actively into all the important proceedings of the body. His labors as a representative were very great and of the highest usefulness. Among his official acts that will live forever as a memento to his manhood and his statesmanship was his vote to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia and his introduction of a bill, which against a determined opposition he persistently pushed to enactment, to prohibit slavery in every place subject to the National jurisdiction. One who knew him well, expressed the opinion however, that the ablest and most notable speech which he made in Congress, was the one delivered May 2, 1862, in the support of the bill to confiscate rebel property. This speech, because of its value as an exponent of constitutional law, challenged the attention of the lawyer members. He was ceaseless in administering blows against the institution of slavery. He acted in this regard steadily upon his own declaration: “Whenever we can give slavery a constitutional blow, let us do it.” On February 15, 1863, he introduced a resolution, which was passed, declaring that the constitution should be so amended as to abolish slavery in the United States; and this was the first step ever taken in Congress in favor of the abolition and prevention of slavery in the country.

In his speech advocating this resolution, he uttered the following vigorous language and eloquent sentiment: “In view of the long catalogue of wrongs that slavery has inflicted upon the country, I demand to-day in the Congress of the United States the death of slavery. We can have no permanent peace while slavery lives. It now reels and staggers in the last death struggle. Let us strike the monster this last decisive blow. Pass this joint resolution and the Thirty-eighth Congress will live in history as that which consummated the great work of freeing a continent from the curse of human bondage. The great spectacle of this vote which knocks off the fetters of a whole race will make this scene immortal.” Further on he said: “I mean to fight this cause of the war—this cause of the expenditure of all the blood and treasure from which my country is now suffering; this institution which has filled our whole land with sorrow, desolation and anguish—I mean to fight it until neither on the statute-book nor in the constitution shall there be left a single sentence or word which can be construed to sustain the stupendous wrong. Let us now in the name of Liberty, Justice and of God consummate this grand resolution. Let us now make our country the home of the free.”

Mr. Arnold’s congressional career ended with the Thirty-eighth Congress March 3, 1865. He had served his country so well, had given the Administration such loyal, able and efficient support and won such a splendid fame that it was generally regretted that he would not consent to be returned. After President Lincoln’s assassination, he accepted the appointment from President Johnson of Auditor of the Treasury for the Port Office department, as a residence in Washington afforded him a more ready access to documents that were necessary to enable him to complete his work entitled the “History of Abraham Lincoln and the Overthrow of Slavery in the United States,” the preparation of which he had commenced before the assassination. He finally resigned the position however, and returned to Chicago in 1867. He then completed his work referred to, which is one of surprising interest and of exceptional historic value. In 1872, he resumed his bar practice in Chicago and continued actively in his profession for two or three years, when failing health compelled him to abandon it. From that time until his death, he lived a retired life in his pleasant home among his books and papers, where surrounded by his family and congenial friends he dispensed an elegant and gracious hospitality. He now had leisure to devote himself to favorite literary pursuits. He devoted himself to historic themes as he had a love for historical research, and a power of analysis which enabled him to do valuable work in historical and biographical writing. In 1880, he brought out a work entitled “Life of Benedict Arnold—His Patriotism and His Treason.” It is generally acknowledged to be a work of ability and fairness. Certainly it showed the independence and courage of the author for it required something of courage to meet the popular prejudice with which the name of Benedict Arnold is regarded. But the author said that he wished to “make known the patriotic service of Benedict Arnold; the sufferings, heroism and the wrongs which drove him to a desperate action and induced one of the most heroic men of an heroic age to perpetrate an unpardonable crime.” The book is really one of great historic value. Mr. Arnold was never quite satisfied with his work on Mr. Lincoln and the overthrow of slavery. About two years before his death, therefore, he began to write the “Life of Abraham Lincoln,” and it is upon this work, says one of his ardent admirers, that his reputation as a biographer and historian must rest.

He was the author of a great number of sketches. “To whatever he undertook,” says one, “Mr. Arnold brought the qualities of a ripe intelligence, great vigor and a sound judgment.” At an age when most men rest, he was pursuing to its legitimate honors and rewards the career of a man of letters and of a historian. With an intellectual and finely chiseled face, of an erect and well-formed person, of quiet and gentlemanly manners and courteous carriage and bearing, Mr. Arnold was a man who always attracted attention. He was a communicant of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and for many years a vestryman of St. James’ Church in Chicago. The successes of life and the usual hardening influences of public life had no effect upon his manly Christian character. The better side of his nature was at all times in the ascendancy. His earnest, paramount desire was to be useful in the world, and he freely understood that to gratify that desire man must be alive to the claims of his fellow man upon him. On his seventieth birthday he wrote: “Three score and ten; Death must be at no great distance. I wish to live only so long as I may be to some extent useful, and not when I shall be a burden. May my remaining days be useful and innocent.” He was possessed of many noble traits of character, not likely to be known outside of his immediate circle of friends. He was a great lover of children, and devotedly tender in his own home.

Mr. Arnold was twice married. His first marriage was with Catherine E. Dorrance of Pittsfield, Mass., who died October 1839. His second marriage was with Harriet Augusta Dorrance, a sister of his former wife, August 4, 1841. Nine children were born of this marriage. Mr. Arnold died at his residence in Chicago, April 24, 1884, mourned by the great city in which he lived and a multitude of others who appreciate the worth of true manhood. No citizen of Chicago ever had more numerous or more eloquent eulogies pronounced upon his death; the memory of no citizen was ever honored by such a gathering of distinguished people as assembled to pay the last sad tribute to Mr. Arnold’s memory.

HOWARD LOUIS CONARD.

SOME ANCIENT METHODS OF PUNISHMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS.

Scarcely anything indicates so accurately the predominant traits and condition of a people at any given period, as do the laws by which they are governed and the mode in which those laws are administered. Hence, in studying the early history of Massachusetts much important aid may be derived from the records of the courts and magistrates of that time. These give us a tolerable correct idea of the laws then in force which were designed to regulate the conduct of men in the various relations of life and show what was the practical administration of those laws. This is quite as true (perhaps more so), of the laws concerning what may be termed minor offences or breaches of social duty, for which men were held legally accountable, as it is of the graver crimes.

Some of the laws relating to this class of minor offences have undergone changes within the last two hundred years, particularly since our separation from the Mother Country.

These changes have been not so much in regard to the nature and description of the offence itself, as in regard to the penalty. They have in Massachusetts at the present time, and have had ever since the American Revolution, laws against drunkenness, vagrancy, petty larceny, libel and slander, profane cursing and swearing, Sabbath breaking, unlawful games or plays, lewdness, common railing and brawling, and idle and disorderly conduct generally. Our Colonial ancestors had laws substantially like those in force so far as relates to the offences themselves.

In fact, the present statutes on these subjects are many of them copies of the provincial statutes. But the penalties are quite different. They now punish breaching of these laws by a small fine or by imprisonment for a short term, or by both. For similar breaches of the statute and common law in the early history of Massachusetts some very different penalties were provided. These were actually enforced in frequent instances, which is hardly true of similar cases at the present day.

The Magistrates and Courts that administered the laws in Massachusetts during the first century and a half after its settlement were full believers in the propriety and efficacy of corporal punishment for a certain class of transgressions. Having based their criminal code largely upon that of Moses, they were well persuaded that, if in no case they exceeded the Hebrew limit of forty stripes, they would have the Divine sanction. With this illustrious precedent constantly in view as a rule of action, they did not hesitate to apply the rod whenever it seemed to them appropriate and adequate penalty for the offence. Crimes of a graver character were dealt with by tribunals of larger jurisdiction and punished by imprisonment or death. But for a large class of misdemeanors, particularly such as were considered scandalous or tending to disorder and of evil example, the rod was a very frequent instrument of punishment.

It was a matter within the discretion of the Magistrate to some extent. This office was held by William Pynehon, of Springfield, Mass., for the first eleven years, afterwards for half a century by John Pynehon and his associates. In awarding this punishment of whipping little regard seems to have been paid by the court to the sex or social position of the offender. If the infliction of the penalty tended to disgrace the culprit, the commission of the offence was in itself disgraceful. The degrading punishment was regarded the just and proper sequence of the disgraceful crime.

The constable was the officer by whom the sentence was executed, and the public whipping post was the place. The time was sometimes the day on which the court was held. Occasionally, the day of the weekly religious lecture was designated as the time for the infliction.

Sometimes whipping was an alternative sentence to be inflicted if the offender failed to pay his fine. Often it was the only punishment awarded.

Some instances will be given, taken from the records—most of them are from the Pynehon record, containing cases tried by William Pynehon as a Magistrate, and cases tried by his son, John Pynehon, in connection with Eleziar Holyoke and Dr. Samuel Chapin who were commissioners appointed by the General Court.

FALSE REPORTS, SLANDERS, ETC.

In May, 1645, the General Court enacted a law designed to suppress the invention and circulation of false reports, whether injurious to private individuals or to the public in general.

The preamble was in these words:

“WHEREAS, Truth in words, as well as actions, is required of all men, especially of Christians who are the professed servants of the God of truth; and

“WHEREAS, All lying is contrary to truth, and some sort of lies are not only sinful (as all lies are), but also pernicious to the public weal and injurious to particular persons. It is therefore ordered that every person who shall wittingly and willingly make or publish any lie pernicious to the public weal or tending to the damage or injury of any particular person, or with intent to deceive and abuse the people with false news and reports shall be punished.

For the 1st offence a fine of 10 shillings, &c.

For the 2d offence a fine of 20 shillings or be whipped upon the naked body not exceeding 10 stripes.

For the 3rd offence a fine of 4 shillings or 15 stripes, &c., &c.”

The following is a case for slander in imputing to a woman the offence witchcraft.

“May 29 and 30, 1649—The widdow Marshfield, complains against Mary, the wife of Hugh Parsons, of Springfield, for reporting her to be suspected for a witch, and she produced Jo Matthews and his wife for her witnesses who were examined upon oath. Jo Matthews said that Mary Parsons told him how she was taught to try a witch by a widdow woman that now lives in Springfield, and that she had lived in Windsor, and that she had three children, and that one of them was married, and at last she said it was the widdow Marshfield. Jo Matthews answered that he believed no such thing of her—but, thereupon, said he, Mary Parsons replied, you need not speak so much for goody Marshfield, for I am sure (said she), she hath envied every woman’s child in ye end (?) till her own daughter had a child, and then said she yt child died and ye cow died, and I am persuaded said she, they were bewitched, and she said moreover, it was reported to her by one in town that she was suspected to be a witch when she lived in Windsor, and that it was publicly knowne that the devill followed her house in Windsor, and for aught I know said she follows her here.

Goody Matthews saith upon oath that when Goody Parsons came to her house she said to her, I wonder what is become of the half pound of wool. Goody Parsons said that she could not tell except the witch had witched it away. I wonder, said I, that you talk so much of a witch—do you think there is any witch in towne? Yes, said she, and she came into my house while the wool was cardinge. Who is it, said I? She said that An Stebbinge had told her in Mr. Smith’s chamber that she was suspected to be a witch in Windsor, and that there were divers strange lights seen of late in the Meddow that were never seen before ye widdow Marshfield came to town, and that she did grudge at other women that had children because her daughter had none, and about the time (namely of the grudging) ye child died and ye cow died.

Goody Parsons did stiffly deny the truth of their testimonys, but the said witness had delivered their testimony upon oath, and finding that she had defamed ye good name of the Widdow Marshfield I sentenced her to be well whipped on the morrow after lecture with twenty lashes by the constable unless she could promise the payment of 3L to ye Widdow Marshfield for and towards the reparation of her good name.”

MARRIAGE—PLYMOUTH COLONY LAWS.—1638.

“Whereas divers persons unfit for marriage both in regard of their young years and also in regard of their weake estate, some practising the enveagling of men’s daughters and maids under guardines contrary to their parents and guardians likeing, and of maid servants without leave and liking of their masters.

“It is therefore enacted by the Court that if any shall make any motion of marriage to any man’s daughter or mayde servant not having first obtayned leave and consent of the parents or master so to doe, shall be punished either by fine or corporal punishment or both, at the discretion of the bench and according to the nature of the offence. It is also enacted that if a motion of marriage be duly made to the master, and through any sinister end or coveteous desire he will not consent thereunto, then the cause to be made known unto the Magistrates and they to set down such order therein as upon examination of the case shall appear to be most equal on both parts.”

COURTSHIP AND MARRIAGE—PROVINCE LAWS.

“May 1647. Whereas God hath committed the care and power into the hands of parents for the disposing of their children in marriage, so that it is against rule to seek to draw away the affection of young maidens under pretence of purpose of marriage, before their parents have given way and allowance in that respect; and whereas it is a common practice in divers places for young men irregularly and disorderly to watch all advantages for their evil purposes to insinuate into the affections of young maidens, by coming to them in places and seasons unknown to their parents for such ends, whereby much evil hath grown amongst us to the dishonor of God and damage of parties; for prevention whereof for time to come:

It is further ordered that whatsoever person from henceforth shall endeavour, directly or indirectly, to draw away the affection of any maid in this jurisdiction, under pretence of marriage, before he hath obtained liberty and allowance from her parents or governors, or in the absence of such, of the nearest magistrate, he shall forfeit for the first offence five pounds, for the second towards the party ten pounds, and be bound to forbear any further attempt and proceedings in that unlawful design without or against the allowance aforesaid; and for the third offence upon information or complaint by such parents or governors to any Magistrate, giving bond to prosecute the party, he shall be committed to prison; and upon hearing and conviction by the next court, shall be adjudged to continue in prison until the court of assistants shall see fit to release him.”

In 1641, before this statute was enacted, a case occurred which Mr. Pynehon records, in which he sentenced parties for the misconduct forbidden by this statute. This must have been under his general authority to examine misdemeanors and inflict corporal punishment.

“January 11, 1640, it is ordered that John Hobell shall be well whipt by the constable for two misdemeanors, first for proceeding to get promises of marriage from Abigail Burt, after that both he and she had been prohibited by her father several times (and also for offering and attempting to doe the act of fornication with her as they both confesse, though as far as we can discerne by any proof of justice the act was not done).

Also Abigail Burt is found guilty in both the said faults, and is also to be well whipt by the constable for the said faults.”