Reminiscences of Its Earlier Days
The subject at the head of this article has material enough in
it, if expanded into such details as might be of interest, to
fill the present number of this paper. How to select from the
facts within the personal recollection of the writer, and from
reliable tradition, so as to bring this article within proper
limits, is no easy task.
The bar of the county, down to about twenty years ago, embraced
not only residents of the county, but also, nearly all the leading
lawyers of more than a dozen of the northern counties. They "rode
the circuit" in those days, some of them attending all the
courts of the circuit, which was then very large territorially,
and some of them attending all the courts of the circuit, which
was then very large territorially, and some of them had occasional
practice in other circuits.
Nearly all had political aspirations; were more than willing to
be elected to congress, and these were therefore anxious to make
extensive personal acquaintances with the people. Arguments before
juries were often made quite as much for the ear of the spectator
as for the jurors. Witnesses and parties had votes and influence,
and I think they were treated with more courtesy and consideration
than some times occurs in later times.
Indeed our courts and bar have not improved in dignity and propriety
with the lapse of time. In the old days men could not become lawyers
without the previous study of law, and mere pettifoggers were
limited in their operations to the justice's courts of the out
townships. Legitimate lawyers and judges gave them no countenance
whatever. The "reform" of the state constitution of
1852, which makes a lawyer of any voter who can get an easy going
court to endorse his moral character, has not resulted in any
thing but harm. In many instances, indeed, the standard of "moral
character" which has been adjudged satisfactory, would not
have been sufficient upon which to base a successful application
to retail whiskey under the "Baxter bill." This is not
a very flattering criticism upon our jurisprudence, or rather
upon its administration; but it has been often made, and in repeating
it here, it is set down rather as an expression of the popular
judgment than an original idea of the writer.
It has more than once occurred in our supreme court, that the
chief justice has invited all who wished admission to the bar
of that high court, to rise and be "sworn in," without
even the endorsement of any body, and a score of men who, for
aught the judges knew or seemed to care, might have been just
out of the penitentiary, or escaped from it, became, at once,
attorneys of that court! It is no pleasure to state this fact.
The earliest resident lawyer of this county was John B. Chapman,
who was one of the very first white settlers within its borders.
He was so well known personally, having died here but recently,
that little can be said of him which would be of interest. He
devoted too much attention to various speculations, to possess
profound knowledge of law; but his energy and tirelessness in
the service of his clients made him formidable before juries.
His hot temper some times rendered him unpleasant at the bar,
and as he was brave, it frequently led even to a contest of blows
in open court, and very often to such a war of words as compelled
the repressive interference of the court by the infliction of
fines. A very amusing instance occurred between him and Emanuel
Harmon, a young lawyer of good promise who resided here a
short time after the year 1842. In the course of a trial where
one Lash was a part in the probate court before Judge Jacob
Baker, who was a Pennsylvania Dutchman, the attorneys, Chapman
and Harmon, quarreled and came to blows. His honor vindicated
the dignity of his court by imposing a fine of $100 on each of
them. The circumstance awakened the muse of William C. Graves,
who recorded it in a witty paraody, one vers of which ran thus
"Vas it mit crimes dot Lash tid done,
Dey rushed upon der preach,
Amazin bityclerk, puts town,
Von hunner totlar each."
Wm. C. Graves now cashier of the First National bank, was,
it is believed, the first student who came to the bar in the county.
He gave good promise of professional eminence, but the better
emoluments of the clerk's office soon tempted him to quite the
profession. He was clerk several terms, until he finally resigned,
on account of failing health, to enter upon the business of a
merchant. He returned to the law some years after, but he had
lost his taste for it and soon abandoned it finally. It was the
testimony of the distinguished judge of the supreme court, Isaac
Blackford, to the writer, that Mr. Graves was the best clerk
in Indiana. He has since been elected to each house of the legislature;
has filled every position with fidelity and credit, and is yet
an active business man in our midst.
C. B Simonson, A. L. Fairbrother, W. G. T'Vault, Elijah Horton,
G. W. Cornelis, M. C. Dougherty, Geo. W. Frasier and A. J. Power
will all be remembered by the older citizens of the county as
resident lawyers, who have passed over the "dark river."
Of these George W. Frasier attained the highest professional eminence.
He possessed extensive legal learning and large intelligence,
and his forensic ability was of a high order. In the prime of
life, and the maturity of his faculties, he passed away. He was
a genial companion, and a large-hearted man as well as an able
lawyer.
A. J. Power died too young to attain that professional
rank, which surely would have been reached, had he lived longer.
He was a wag, and as such will never be forgotten by those who
knew him. He had a great, warm, generous heart, and was true to
his convictions always. His impulses were quick and often hot.
Once in a public meeting a fine speech of his was spoiled by his
feelings of indignation overcoming him. This was the occasion:
the Kansas Nebraska bill had passed and a public meeting was assembled
in the courthouse to consider the situation. Power, who had always
been a Democrat, was called for a speech. He was apparently calm
and began; but as he spoke he rapidly became excited. He attempted
to argue. Said he, "they call this infernal conspiracy popular
sovereignty. The spread of the cause of slavery over territory
consecrated to freedom by the fathers and by the Almighty is popular
sovereignty is it! (in a voice of thunder) `Popular h__l!"
It makes my blood hot as volcanic fires. I can not, I can not,
command myself to talk about it. Let those who can argue it. My
party had done this infernal thing." I wash my hands of the
party forever; and I shall fight it fight it till I die!"
and he sat down. If the courthouse had been then as dilapidated
as it is now, it would hardly have withstood the thunderous approbation
with which the packed audience greeted this spontaneous outburst
of honest indignation
Andrew J. Bair is one of those rare cases, where a man
of excellent capacity and qualifications, with regular and studious
habits, nevertheless loses hope of attaining professional standing
and quits. His legal education had been good, and his general
intelligence was also unusually varied. He would, in consultation,
give as clear expression to his legal opinions as any body; he
could put his case on paper, in the pleadings, exceedingly well.
He was in all respects a sensible man. But the moment he rose
in court to speak, both words and ideas deserted him. He persevered
for three or four years, hoping to wear off this timidity, but
without success. Thus the bar lost a member whom they all respected
very much. He is yet amongst us a successful merchant and a most
excellent citizen.
Wm. Williams studied law late in life. The first duty performed
by the writer after settling here in April, 1845 was with Thomas
G. Harris, to examine "Billy" for admission to the bar.
Upon a favorable report he was admitted, and at once began to
practice. Special pleading troubled "Billy" always,
but when he got his case to the jury he was formidable at the
very beginning of his practice, by reason of his speeches. In
a trial of wit he scarcely ever came out second best. A case before
a justice of the peace may be given as an example. He had brought
a suit in trespass for killing his client's dog, and filed his
declaration in two counts, one for shooting a dog, the second
for hanging a dog. The defendant's attorney filed the general
issue. There was a jury trial and the whole township attended.
The only real controversy was as to the value of the dog; but
in argument, the defendant's attorney undertook to complain of
the hardship of the case. "The defendant," he said,
"was falsely charged with having killed two dogs. There was
no proof of this. But he was compelled to litigate, whereas if
the killing of only one dog had been alleged, according to the
truth, the defendant might have let judgment go, and thus have
saved costs." This was uttered with apparent seriousness,
and, it could be seen, was likely to have some effect. "Billy"
evinced annoyance for a moment. In his closing speech, however,
he alluded to the matter, with well-simulated indignation. He
called attention to the long "Presbyterian face" with
which his opponent had intimated that if the complaint had been
for one dog only, the killing of which was not disputed, the expense
of the trial would have been avoided, and added, "Now don't
be deceived by that long face, it looks honest and yet, as I shall
prove to you, by his own hand-writing, he knew he was lying all
the time. Here (holding up the general issue) is his own plea,
in which he denies, that his client killed any dog at all, and
for that reason we were suddenly compelled to prove what never
ought to have been disputed." "Billy" won the case
and the joke was on his opponent.
But years afterwards another case left the joke on Billy. Two
responsible and spunky farmers got into controversy about the
ownership of a lamb worth $1.50 which culminated in a replevin
suit before a justice of the peace and an appeal to the common
pleas. In that court, "Billy" was for the plaintiff
and his adversary of the dog case had the other side. Each party
had a half dozen honest witnesses to prove most positively his
title to the sheep. The defendant's attorney knew that under such
circumstances the result was uncertain unless "Billy"
should forget to prove some mere technical point; and, accordingly,
he resolved, if possible, to keep "Billy" so absorbed
with the main question that he would forget to prove any things
else. The plan was successful.
"Billy's" first witness testified solely to the ownership
of the sheep, and on cross-examination he was finally attacked
and worried so that his testimony was somewhat shaken, and Billy
rendered very uneasy. The same policy was pursued with each of
the plaintiff's witnesses, and Billy forgot to prove that the
defendant had taken or detained the animal. Then the defendant
produced his witnesses to the question of ownership and Billy
cross-examined them savagely. The case was argued solely on the
question of ownership and after the court had instructed the jury
on all other questions, the defense quietly asked an instruction
to the effect that without proof that the defendant had wrongfully
taken or unlawfully detained the lamb, the verdict must be for
the defendant. This knocked the breath out of Billy, he lost his
case and his client paid $50 costs.
James H. Carpenter also came to the bar late in life. He
had first studied medicine and practiced it with success. He then
studied law. Nothing short of the greatest perseverance will,
under such circumstances, win success in the legal profession,
so difficult is it to withdraw the mind from early channels of
thought. His success is an exception to the general result. Soon
after he came to the bar, he gave some attention to real estate
speculations with a view to making money. He was somewhat successful
at one time, and in the midst of it he had the defense of a bastardy
case, which was prosecuted by the late Judge Mather. In argument
he warned the jury that if such complaints were sustained upon
doubtful evidence the influence would tend to demoralize females
of a certain class by tempting them to institute groundless charges
of that sort for the purpose of "making money." Mather
admitted the wisdom of the suggestion, though he denied its pertinency
to the pending case. "But," said he, "I know well
with what a strong grasp the passion for speculation and money
making, when unduly indulged, seizes upon the souls of both men
and women; and as my brother Carpenter seems to see an opportunity
for speculation in the making of complaints for bastardy, I shall
not be surprised to see him shortly engaging in the business!"
Of course the gravity of the court was disturbed, and nobody enjoyed
the joke better than Carpenter.
A little later came Edgar Haymond, W. S. Marshall, E. V. Long,
H. S. Biggs, and R. B. Encell, now prominent members of our
bar, and recently a number of young men, who have had advantages
of education beyond their seniors, which will, doubtless, in the
end, furnish an abler corps of resident lawyers than those who
have preceded them.
The non-resident members of our bar of the olden time, were Gustavus
A. Everts, Samuel C. Samples, John B. Niles, E. M. Chamberlain,
A. L. Osburn, J. L. Worden, Jno. U. Pettit, E. A. M'Mahon, John
B. Howe, D. D. Pratt, H. P. Biddle, J. L. Jernagan, J. A.Liston,
John D. Defrees, James Bradley, Thomas G. Harris, J. H. Mather,
John Morris and L. M. Ninde. For many years these gentlemen attended
all our courts, and were as well known, in the county as if they
had resided in it. Sample, Chamberlian, Pratt, Harris and Mather
are dead. They were able lawyers and esteemed and honored citizens,
and all were the early and valued personal friends, of the writer
of these reminiscences.
Amongst the members of our county bar, resident and non-resident,
who have been called to high places of trust, I enumerate: one
senator of the United States; four judges of the supreme court
of Indiana; nine circuit judges; four common pleas judges; six
members of congress; one government printer and one commissioner
of internal revenue. It is believed that none of these has brought
any discredit on the public service, and it may be asserted that
many of them have filled their high places with marked distinction.
The original plan of this article contemplated a brief biographical
sketch of each of the lawyers of the olden time, who has died
or achieved unusual distinction, together with such personal incidents
and anecdotes as might be deemed worth recording. But the space
already occupied and the other imperative demands upon the time
of the writer combined to forbid it.
Believed to have been written by James Frazer
Northern Indianian Mammoth Holiday Sheet Saturday, December 28,
1878
Back to YesterYear in Print