WE enter upon the
subject-matter of this chapter with fear and with trembling, and would
fain dismiss it altogether, pass its theme by, as it were, but for the
sake of the completeness of our survey of the Scot in America. The
subject is practically an inexhaustible one. From the beginning of the
Colonial history Scots have been prominent in public affairs, and at the
present time it is safe to say there is not a Legislature or
municipality in the country that cannot produce one or more members who
are able to trace Scotch blood in their veins. The connection of the
Scots with America, in fact, began long before the Colonial period, and
has steadily waxed in importance and numerical strength ever since.
Sometimes, we must confess, the claim of Scotch descent is decidedly
infinitesimal, but the claim, even when made on the slenderest grounds,
is a compliment to the "Land of the Heather."
However that may be,
there is no question that a complete survey of the story of the Scottish
race in America, even within the limitations imposed by the title to
this chapter, would bring us face to face with the task of writing a
tolerably complete American dictionary of biography. Thomas Jefferson,
James Madison, James Monroe, Patrick Henry, Andrew Jackson, Thomas
Benton, John C. Calhoun, James Buchanan, J. C. Breckinridge, U. S.
Grant, R. B. Hayes, Chester A. Arthur, and James G. Blaine, all claimed
descent from Scotland, and so did Robert Fulton, the steamboat pioneer;
C. H. McCormick, of thrashing machine fame; Davy Crockett, the fighter;
Joseph Henry, the scientist, and if the student of this subject were to
incorporate, as he would have a perfect right to do, the legion
describing themselves as of the Scotch-Irish race, he would be
confronted with an appalling task. Even George Washington had a little
mixture of Scotch blood in his cornposition—so it is said.
In these circumstances it
is absolutely necessary to draw the line somewhere, and instead of
attempting anything like a complete survey, to rest content with
selecting a few instances from early times until the present day. Of
course many who might claim a place in this chapter have already been
spoken of in other connections, and so we must pass over a large number
of names which would add greatly to the brilliancy of the present
record.
One of the earliest of
the minor Scotch office holders in the history of the continent was
Thomas Gordon, who was born at Pitlochry, in the parish of Moulin,
Perthshire, in 1650. In 1684 he settled at Scotch Plains, and in 1698
was elected Attorney General of the Eastern district of Jersey and
Secretary and Registrar in 1702. Despite these legal appointments, it
was not until 1707 that he was licensed as an attorney, and the same
year he was elected to the Legislature and served as Speaker of the
Assembly. These appointments and elections show that he must have
enjoyed considerable popularity among his fellow colonists. But he rose
still higher when he was appointed Chief Justice of the Province, and,
later on, its Receiver General and Treasurer. He died at Perth Amboy in
1722, having a record as an office holder that would have won for him
the envy of a modern politician had he lived in later times and been as
successful. But, unlike the majority of modern instances of success in
that regard, old Thomas Gordon's good fortune was undoubtedly due to his
honesty and ability, two qualities which do not figure very largely in
the qualities of our contemporary office seekers.
A man who loomed up even
more prominently in the public eye of his day was Andrew Hamilton, who
was called by Gouverneur Morris "the day star of the American
Revolution." There is a good deal of mystery about the earl- career of
this man. He was born, it is believed, in Edinburgh about 1656 and
settled in the American colonies in 1695. Of his family or history until
landing in America nothing is certain. For some reason or other he never
referred to such matters. It is known, however, that when he first
settled in the Colonies he bore the name of Trent, although he soon
discarded it for Hamilton, which is believed to have been that of his
family. Probably he was concerned in some of the Covenanting troubles
and his own strict religious views would seem to warrant this
suggestion, for when he settled in Philadelphia he was received into
communion by the Quakers and was one of the most strait-laced of that
sect, although a lawyer. His first resting place in America was in
Acconiac Parish, Virginia, where he got a position as steward on an
estate and added to his income by conducting a classical school. After a
while the owner of the estate (lied and the widow became the wife of
Hamilton, who thereby not only became a landed proprietor, but at once
got a standing in social life which started him in a signally favorable
way toward the success which he afterward attained. He entered upon the
study of the law with all the zeal of a determined Scot, and in due time
was admitted to practice. Then, seeing that the opportunities of the
profession lay in the large cities, he removed to Philadelphia, and as
the saying goes, "hung out his shingle." This was some time prior to
1716. In 1717 he became Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and in 1721 a
member of the Provincial Council. He became Recorder of Philadelphia in
1727, and the same year was elected a member of Assembly from Bucks
County. He continued to be a Representative until 1739, and was several
times Speaker of Assembly. It is worthy of note that the ground on which
Independence Hall in Philadelphia stands was bought by Hamilton for the
purpose of the erection of a suitable building to accommodate the
Legislature and tit courts, these public bodies having previously been
sheltered in private houses, and, though the scheme was not completed
until after Hamilton's death, it is curious to know that a spot so
famous in the history of the country and so sacred to ever- lover of
freedom was once in the possession of one whose country has been famous
for its struggles on behalf of liberty.
Notwithstanding his
public duties, Hamilton continued zealously to practice his profession,
and gradually advanced to the front until he became the undisputed
leader of the Pennsylvania bar. His fame had extended far beyond the
boundaries of his own State—and fame did not travel as quickly then as
now—and he was noted not only for his fearlessness in maintaining the
rights of his clients, but in his adherence to what he perceived to be
the rights of all citizens and the inherent liberties of the Colonies.
All this gave him the opportunity which has won him a place in American
history and caused Gouverneur Morris to characterize him by the proud
title with which we began our reference to him, a title which any
American family would be proud to possess among its ancestral glories.
A printer in New
York—John Peter Zenger—had printed in the columns of the "New York
Journal," a little newspaper issued by him, some strictures on the then
Chief Magistrate, Gov. Crosby. The strictures were very unpalatable,
mainly because they were for the most part true, and as a 'warning to
others, as much as for his own offenses, Zenger was arrested. It was
proposed to deal summarily with the prisoner, but public interest was
aroused in his case, and it was seen that if he was convicted all hope
of free speech would, for the time at least, he gone. As the public
became interested the authorities became determined and harsh. In
pursuance of his rights Zenger's counsel made an objection to the Judges
who were to try the case, and they were promptly disbarred, while a
lawyer was assigned by the court to carry on the defense. All this time
public sentiment had been forming and consolidating, and the "Sons of
Liberty," as representatives of the spirit of liberty among the people.
took a hand in fighting the Executive and in defending what they
regarded as the inalienable rights of all freemen--that of free speech
and discussion. When Zenger was finally called on to face a jury, the
authorities were confident of making short work of his case and of
establishing a precedent which would crush out what they deemed
"sedition" in the future. It was not known to them that Zenger's friends
were doing any practical work on his behalf, but they were letter
enlightened when the court was open and Andrew Hamilton walked in and
announced that he had been re- tamed as counsel for the prisoner. The
fame of the venerable attorney, his standing at the bar, the prominent
offices lie had held, and his position as a member of Assembly forbade
his being treated in the summary fashion of Zenger's earlier counsel,
and the representatives of the prosecution could do nothing but submit.
They had great hopes from the jury, and, besides, they knew that the
,judges were with them.
The prosecution held that
all the jury had to determine was whether the publication which was
scheduled as libelous had appeared, and that they had nothing to do with
the truth or falsity of the libel. Hamilton demurred from this, saying
he was prepared to admit the publication of the strictures and to prove
their truth, leaving the issue to the jury to be whether truth was a
libel or not. He was overruled by the Court on the inferred ground that
anything reflecting on the King was a libel. Hamilton then denied that
the King's representative had the same prerogatives as the sovereign
himself, and claimed the right of proving the truth of every statement
that had been made in Zenger's paper. This the Court again overruled,
and Hamilton confined his attention to the jury and made a glowing
speech on behalf of personal liberty and the right of free criticism,
which still ranks as one of the masterpieces of American legal
eloquence. His speech was productive of effect far beyond the limits of
the courtroom in which it was delivered, or the case in which it was
used. It started a train of thought which fired men's minds and did more
than anything else to give expression to the popular desire for
freedom--for the freedom which the people deemed their birthright as
British subjects—for independence was not then thought of, though it was
the natural and unavoidable result, as men's minds and men's experience
then went in Britain and in America. He practically admitted again the
publication of the words deemed libelous. "Then the verdict must be for
the King," broke in the prosecuting attorney. But Hamilton proceeded to
contend that, the words must be considered by the jury as to whether
they constituted a libel or no, and quoted texts of Scripture to show
how even they might be considered as libelous, by a zealous lawyer,
against the then government of the Colony. Therefore lie urged the jury,
even though the Court might decide otherwise, to consider the words for
themselves, and put their own construction on them. In concluding he
said: "You see I labor under the weight of many years, and am borne down
by many infirmities of body; yet, old and weak as I am, I should think
it my duty, if required, to go to the uttermost part of the land where
my service could be of any use in assisting to quench the flame of
prosecutions upon informations set on foot by the Government to deprive
a people of the right of remonstrating and complaining, too, against the
arbitrary attempts of men in power. Men who oppress and injure the
people under their administration provoke them to cry out and complain,
and then make that very complaint the foundation for new oppressions and
prosecutions. * * * The question before the court is not of small or
private concern. It is not the cause of a poor printer nor of New York
alone which you are now trying. No! It may in its consequences affect
every freeman that lives under the British Government upon the main of
America. It is the best cause; it is the cause of liberty; and I make no
doubt but your upright conduct this day will not only entitle you to the
love and esteem of your fellow-citizens, but every man who prefers
freedom to a life of slavery will bless and honor you as men who have
baffled the attempts of tyranny, and by an impartial and incorrupt
verdict, have made a noble foundation for securing to ourselves and our
posterity and our neighbors that to which nature and the laws of our
country have given us a right—the liberty of both exposing and opposing
arbitrary power in these parts of the world, at least by speaking and
writing truth."
The prosecution replied,
and the Court charged against the prisoner, but Hamilton's eloquence was
irresistible, and the jury, after a few minutes' deliberation, acquitted
Zenger, much to the disgust of the powers. But the public delight was
unbounded, and Hamilton became the hero of the hour. The next day he was
entertained at a public dinner, received the freedom of the city from
the corporation, the certificate being inclosed in a gold box purchased
by private subscription, and he was escorted by a large crowd to the
barge which was to carry him back to Philadelphia. Hamilton died in
Philadelphia, in 1741. His son, James, became Governor of Pennsylvania.
Sometimes, in the course
of this work, we have traced the fortunes of a family for two or three
generations, mainly for the sake of showing how the qualities which
distinguished the founder have not been lost in his descendants. Another
instance of the same sort may be recorded in this place in connection
with the Auchmuty family. The first of the name to settle in America was
Robert Auchmuty—horn in Fifeshire, in 1670. His American experiences
seem to have been confined to Boston, where he appears to have arrived
in 1699, and at once assumed a prominent position as a lawyer. He was
active in local affairs, and was held in general esteem. In 1741 he was
sent to England as agent for the Colony of Massachusetts, an appointment
that is sufficient testimony to his standing as a citizen and his
honesty as a man. He died, in Boston, in 1750. His eldest son succeeded
to his law business, and carried it on in Boston until 1776, when, being
an intense loyalist, he left the country and went to Britain, where he
remained till his death.
A younger son, Samuel,
born in Boston in 1722, was educated for the ministry, and became
assistant rector of Trinity Church, New York, becoming rector in 1764.
The Revolution brought him into a sea of troubles. As intensely loyal as
his brother, he continued to read prayers for George III. long after the
Revolution had broken out and the rule of monarchy was declared at an
end. When ordered by Gen. Alexander, titular Earl of Stirling, to
discontinue such loyal petitions, he closed the church and left the
city. New York was at that time in possession of the Continental troops,
and when, by a turn in the tide of war, it fell again into the hands of
the British, in 1777, Dr. Auchmuty returned to his post of duty, only to
find his beloved church in ruins and its records destroyed. The shock
was too much for him, and he died, broken-hearted, in March, 1777. His
son, Samuel, born in New York in 1758, entered the British Army and
served in it during the Revolutionary War. Obtaining a Captaincy, he
served in India from 1783 to 1796, and in 1800 was in Egypt under
Abercrombie. In 1803, for his services, he was knighted, and soon after
proceeded to South America, where he distinguished himself by his skill
and bravery. In 1811 he reduced Java, and was regarded as one of the
best officers in the service. Returning to Britain, he was commissioned
a Lieutenant General in 1813. He died at Dublin, in 1822, while
Commander in Chief of the forces in Ireland, leaving behind him the
record of a long and honorable career, unmarked by reproach or blame.
In the history of the
City of Richmond, one of the most prominent of its residents in civil
life during the Revolutionary War, and for many years after it had
he-come reminiscent, was John Harvie, a native of the Parish of
Gargunnock, Stirlingshire. He was born about 1740, and is believed to
have emigrated to the Colonies shortly after reaching his majority. He
settled in Albemarle County, Va., and began the practice of law. In this
he was eminently successful, and his ability was so generally
acknowledged that in 1774 he was commissioned by the General Assembly to
make a treaty with the Indians, a task that was always reckoned a
delicate one, requiring unlimited diplomacy, cool judgment, and the
utmost firmness. He also threw himself devotedly into the cause of the
Colonies against the motherland, and in 1775 and 1776 represented
Augusta County in the Virginia Conventions of these years. Then he was
sent to Congress, where he served during two eventful years, and he
afterward held several State offices, including that of Secretary of the
Commonwealth of Virginia. His latter years were spent in Richmond, and
lie took an active part in every movement designed to add to the
importance and beauty of that city. Indeed, it was while superintending
the erection of a handsome new building which he intended to be an
ornamental landmark that he met with the accident which, in 1807, caused
his death.
Another
Indian-treaty-making Scot was David Brodie Mitchell, a native of
Paisley, who crossed the Atlantic in 1783, in his seventeenth year, to
take possession of some property in Georgia which had been bequeathed to
him by his uncle, David Brodie. He took up his headquarters in Savannah,
and the work necessary to enable him to acquire his property led to his
devoting himself to the study of law, and in due time he was admitted to
the bar, having assumed citizenship in the young Republic. His studies
were so well directed to acquiring the mastery of his profession that he
soon enjoyed a widespread reputation as a lawyer, and, in 1795, was
chosen to be Solicitor General of Georgia. A year later he was elected
to the State Legislature, and he was afterward elected several times
Governor of the Commonwealth, and each term justified the public
confidence by the executive qualities he displayed. In his dealings with
the Indians he was ever just and humane. In any treaty negotiations he
tried to be honorable in his claims and concessions, and his treatment
of these people won for him their regard. Gov. Mitchell also took a deep
interest in educational matters, and did much to extend their progress
in the State he had adopted, and which he loved and served so well.
A curious instance, for
America, of a man eminently fitted for public life, yet utterly
regardless of its honors —a man with ability to have reached and
retained a high position in the service of the country, yet who
preferred the pleasures of home life to the allurements of office—is
afforded by a consideration of the career of John Greig of Canandaigua.
Born at Moffat, Dumfries, in 1779, and educated at Edinburgh University,
he settled in America in 1800, and applied himself to the practice of
law. He in time acquired a competency, and, though often urged to run
for Congress, he steadily refused, excepting once. He had hosts of
admirers, and the graceful hospitalities which were so marked a feature
of his home life made him even better understood and more endeared to
his associates and friends than though he had met their wishes and
embarked on the stormy and uncertain, sometimes dirty, sea of politics.
Among others of his guests was the illustrious Lafayette, the "patriot
of two hemispheres," as he has been called, who was entertained by Greig
on his triumphal return visit to the States in 1824. In 1825 Greig
accepted the office of Regent of the State University, hoping thereby to
do some service to the cause of education, and he attended to the duties
of the office with all the zeal they gave opportunity for. He was
induced to stand as a representative of his district for Congress, and
was elected in 1841, but he served only one term, having no taste either
for life in Washington or the duties and requirements of a Congressman.
So he gladly retired when the term for which he was elected had expired,
and returned to his home and his law practice. In 1845 he was made
Chancellor of the State University, and that position, of which he was
very proud, he retained until his death, at Canandaigua, in 1858.
It may have been noticed
in the last few cases mentioned, and in several others in the course of
this volume, how easily and naturally many Scots on settling in America
turned to the law as a profession. Another and conspicuous instance of
this was Judge Mitchell King. He was born at Grail, Fifeshire, in 1783.
In 1805 he began his long connection with the City of Charleston by
securing an appointment as an assistant teacher in Charleston College,
having been a teacher for a short time before leaving Scotland. While
attending to his duties in the college and prosecuting the studies
necessary to advancement in the teaching profession, he saw that there
were more possibilities in the practice of law, and in 1807 he began its
study. Three years later he was admitted to the bar, and gradually won a
front rank. In 1819 he became a Judge of the Charleston City Court, and
served on the bench many years. Throughout his career Judge King took a
deep interest in what is now called "higher education." He founded, in
1809, the Philosophical Society of Charleston and lectured before it
frequently, and he was the author of many treatises on scientific and
agricultural subjects. An exemplary American citizen, Judge King seemed
to grow more and more enthusiastic over his native land as time cast it
deeper into the shadows of remembrance, and his nationality was always
with him a matter of pride. In 1808 he joined the Charleston St.
Andrew's Society, and served it in many ways, notably as its President
for several terms. In 1829, when that organization celebrated its
centenary, he delivered an oration which is a model of its kind. Judge
King continued to take an active part in the work of the society, and so
to do something for pair Auld Scotland's sake, until his death, at
Flatwick, N. C., in 1862, when his adopted country was in the throes of
the great civil war.
Hugh Maxwell of New York,
one of the best known and, in some quarters, best hated, of the public
men of that city in his day, was equally conspicuous during his life for
his prominence in Scottish circles. The older he got, the closer
Scotland came to him, although in his case the love was purely
sentimental, as he was carried from his native city of Paisley when very
young. He was born there in 1787. His early schooling was in one of the
grammar schools of New York, and he studied at Columbia College with the
view of engaging in the practice of law, and passed successfully. He
began business as an attorney soon after he attained his majority, and
in 1814 was appointed an Assistant Judge Advocate General in the United
States Army. In 1819 he was elected District Attorney of New York, and
won a flattering reputation in his administration of that difficult and
unenviable position. He so won the confidence of the public that he was
again elected to the office, and continued to hold it until 1829. He was
truly a terror to evil-doers, Uniting the cleverness of a detective to
the genius of a lawyer, and leaving no effort undone to bring the guilty
to book. But he never, like so many modern prosecuting attorneys,
rejoiced in a conviction for the sake of conviction alone. He shielded
the innocent as determinedly as he crushed the guilty, and, unlike some
of his successors, never used his office to aid a "pull" or to defeat
the majesty and power of the law. He took a particularly active part in
the prosecution of the so-called conspiracy trials, which created a
great amount of excitement at the time. Mr. Maxwell's work in this
connection raised tip for him many enemies, among them Halleck, the
poet, who held him up to ridicule in some rather commonplace verses.
Mr. Maxwell's last public
office was that of Collector, of the Port of New York, which he held
between the years 1849 and 1852, covering the terms of the
Administrations of Presidents Taylor and Fillmore. In the St. Andrew's
Society, of which he became a member in 1811, he passed through the
office of manager and the Vice Presidential chairs to the Presidency,
which he held in 1835 and 1836, and at the time of his death, in 1873,
he had long been the oldest living member, having paid dues into its
treasury for sixty-two years.
A public man of a stamp
not too common in America, one who united the shrewdness of a lawyer,
the breadth of a statesman, and the humble piety and aggressive zeal of
a true Christian, must be the verdict of every one who, after a study of
his career, passes judgment on Walter Lowrie, for many years Secretary
of the United States Senate. Born in Edinburgh in 1784, he settled with
his parents in Pennsylvania in 1791. He was brought up on a farm owned
by his father, a man of sincere piety, who, although unable to give his
son a thorough general education, took care that his religious training
was as full and deep reaching as though he were designed for the
ministry. This was, in fact, the utmost legacy the Scottish farrier
could give his son, but it was enough, as a foundation, to carry him
safely through life and exalt him to high places.
When eighteen years of
age, Lowrie resolved to study for the ministry, but after a time he
abandoned the idea and determined to enter the legal profession. When
twenty-seven years of age his neighbors, with a high appreciation of his
character, elected him as their representative in the Senate of
Pennsylvania. After serving in that body for seven years, he was chosen
as one of the Senators from his State to the United States Senate, and
when his term expired, in 1824, he was elected Secretary of the Senate,
and held that important office for twelve years, when he voluntarily
retired, to the regret of all the members of that body.
The rest of Mr. Lowrie's
life was spent in doing good, and the influence he exerted, even upon
Congress, was very great. He founded the Congressional prayer meeting,
and was active in the formation of the Congressional Temperance Society,
and, although these institutions have now long been abandoned, they did
much good in their day, and some time in the future their influence may
be revived. In 1836 Mr. Lowrie was elected Corresponding Secretary of
the Western Foreign Missionary Society, and in the following year was
called to a similar position in the Board of Foreign Missions of the
Presbyterian Church, which latter office he held for thirty-two years.
He was particularly interested in the evangelization of the American
Indian tribes, and spent much time in visiting the red men on their
reservations and throughout the West. It is impossible to calculate the
full value of this man's life work. Wherever he went, his thoughts were
always directed to noble ends, and his blameless career as a politician
stands out in pleasant relief in the somewhat muddy atmosphere of
American practical politics. Several of his sons, emulating his example,
became missionaries of the Gospel in foreign lands, and his eldest son
succeeded him in the Secretaryship of the Presbyterian Foreign Mission
Board, after preaching the gospel in India for three years, and so
having practical experience in that nobless of all the outcomes of
Christian practice and teaching.
In 1765 there arrived in
Boston from Dornoch, Sutherlandshire, a Scotch crofter-fisherman named
Adam McCulloch. He settled at Arundel, afterward known as Kennebunkport,
in Maine. He joined in with the Revolutionary movement and accepted
citizenship in the young Republic with equanimity, and, if he did not
wax rich, he at least became comfortable in his circumstances through
his own exertions, although the life of a pioneer in Maine in those days
was one of much hardship and danger. His son became a ship owner, and
when the War of 1812 broke out was one of the largest merchants of the
ship-owning class in New England and in a fair way to becoming one of
the recognized wealthy men of the northern seaboard. The business
interests of Maine, however, suffered sadly in the war, and the ship
owner sustained such losses that his operations had, temporarily, to
come to a complete standstill. His son Hugh—the grandson of the Scotch
crofter—who had been born at Kennebunk in 1808, had been entered a
student at Bowdoin College, but his health gave way, and this, together
with the condition of his father's financial affairs, caused him to
leave the institution long before the usual course was completed.
At seventeen years of
age, Hugh McCulloch began to earn his own living by teaching school, and
continued at that occupation until 1829, when he commenced the study of
law. That study he completed in Boston in 1832, and a year later he went
to Fort Wayne and entered upon the practice of his chosen profession.
But it was soon discovered that his talents were those of a financier
rather than a lawyer, and he entered on his real career, when, in 1835,
he became manager of one of the branches of the State Bank of Indiana. A
year later he became one of the Directors, and finally, as President of
a great banking company, became known as one of the financial
authorities in the West. He entered public life in 1863, when he
accepted from Secretary Chase the position of Controller of the
Currency, and in 1863 he became himself Secretary of the Treasury, with
a seat in President Lincoln's Cabinet, and he continued to hold the
office under President Johnson. When his term expired he retired from
official position, until, at President Arthur's request, he again
returned to the Cabinet as the head of the Treasury. From that time he
lived mainly in retirement, enjoying the glorious sunset of a busy life,
until his death, in 1895.
Hugh McCulloch was by no
means what is commonly regarded in the States as a politician. He had no
political fences to keep in order, no wires to manipulate, no leaders to
conciliate, or heelers to propitiate. Every public office he held came
to him unsolicited, and he cared nothing for intrigues or for personal
popularity. He did simply what he thought was right; he had no motive in
any of his acts as a public man beyond serving the best interests of the
country. In the Cabinet councils his cool, practical, common-sense view
of whatever topic came up for discussion proved of incalculable value,
and his shrewdness and sterling honesty were always conspicuous. In the
Treasury Department his policy was always regarded as safe, and his
reputation as a financier was of infinite value to the country,
especially immediately after the war, when so many wildcat schemes were
on foot. His innate Scotch practical nature showed him clearly that
there was no royal road to national wealth, no sidetracks from the
strait path of national integrity.
An equally noteworthy
exponent of Scotch industry, honesty, and common sense was James
Gilfillan, who from 1869 till his death, in 1895, was, with the
exception of a short interval, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
Minnesota. Judge Gilfillan was born at Bannockburn in 1829, and was
brought to this country in his childhood. He received his early
education in New York City, studied law at Ballston Spa and Buffalo, and
in 1850 was admitted to the bar at Albany. He practiced at Buffalo for
some seven years, and then removed to St. Paul, Minn., which became his
home city thereafter. When the civil war started he joined the Seventh
Minnesota Regiment, and in 1862 was commissioned as Colonel of the
Eleventh Minnesota. He commanded that regiment until it was mustered out
of service at the close of hostilities, in June, 1865. He then settled
down again to the practice of law at St. Paul. In 1869 he was appointed
Chief Justice of Minnesota, to fill a vacancy, and held a seat on the
bench until the next election. In 1875 he was again appointed
temporarily, but at the election that year he was elected to it by the
votes of the people, and his subsequent re-elections demonstrated their
satisfaction with his services. During his long term on the bench not a
whisper was ever heard reflecting on his impartiality, and his thorough
knowledge and grasp of the law, national as well as State, was conceded.
His opinions and judgments were models in their way. They were couched
in plain language, and terse in their expression and so written that
they could be clearly understood by whoever chose to read them, a
quality which is seldom characteristic of legal documents of any kind.
It seems essential to the extreme sentiment of trades unionism which
prevails in the legal profession to clothe everything with a
disheartening and unmeaning mass of verbiage, as well as to multiply
forms and procedures, and, of course, costs. This brings grist to the
legal mill, but is of no service for any other purpose in the
world—certainly not for any purpose of right or of justice. Some day
this extraneous mass of legal cobwebs will be swept away by a disgusted
people, and then Judge Gilfillan's clear-cut decisions may be taken as
models of what such judicial utterances ought to be--terse, sound,
logical, and conclusive, and thoroughly understandable by any man
possessing mere common sense.
A jurist with an even
more national reputation was, (or is, for he still lives in honorable
retirement,) Arthur MacArthur, who in 1887 retired from the bench as
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States under the
act which permits judicial retirement after the occupant of the bench
has reached the allotted span of threescore years and ten. Judge
MacArthur was born at Glasgow in 1815, and settled in America when very
young. In 1841 he was admitted to the bar in New-York, and began
practice at Springfield, Mass. In 1849 he removed to the then new city
of Milwaukee, resolved to `'grow up" with it, and two years later was
elected its City Attorney. In 1855 he was elected Lieutenant Governor of
Wisconsin, and acted as Governor for a time. His first appointment to
the bench was in 1857, when he became Judge of the Second Judicial
District of the State, and was re-elected in 1863. He was called to the
Supreme Court in 1870, and in that position his merits as a jurist
became recognized all over the country. With the exception of serving as
one of the United States Commissioners to the Paris Exposition of 1867,
Judge MacArthur has held no other public office, confining himself
mainly to the pursuit of his profession, and, as a recreation, to the
study of literary and historical subjects. As an orator he held high
rank in Wisconsin, where his principal efforts in that line were made,
and his services as a lecturer were for many years in constant demand.
In the St. Andrew's Society of Milwaukee he was long a leading figure,
presided over it for several terms; and at its banquets on St. Andrew's
day, or in connection with the Burns anniversary celebrations, his
presence and speeches were for years regarded as prominent features.
Another noted figure in
public life, who began his career as a lawyer, was James Burnie Beck,
for many years United States Senator from Kentucky. He was horn in
Dumfriesshire in 1822, and settled with his parents in Lexington, Ky. He
was elected to the lower house of Congress in 1867, and served until
1875, (through four terms,) and was then chosen one of the
representatives of his adopted State in the National Senate, and so
continued till his death, in 1889. He was noted in public life as an
authority on financial and currency matters, and was devoted in his
adherence to free-trade principles. His honesty was admitted on every
side, and his addresses on any question were listened to with marked
attention, for his ripe judgment and wide range of information made his
utterances well deserving of careful consideration. He had a contempt
for such legislative pranks as filibustering, or talking against time,
and, although pronounced in his own opinions and zealous in every cause
he adopted, he never stooped to tactics that were unworthy of his high
legislative position or derogatory to the assembly of which he was a
member. Scotsmen in the lover house of Congress have been plentiful
enough all through its history, and in the Fifty-first Congress, for
instance, there were no fewer than five Congressmen—D. B Henderson of
Dubuque, Iowa, a native of Old Deer, Aberdeenshire; David Kerr of Grundy
Centre, Iowa, a native of Dalry, Ayrshire; J. M. Farquhar of Buffalo, N.
Y., a native of Ayr; W. G. Laidlaw of Ellicottville, N. Y., a native of
Jedburgh, and John L. Macdonald of Shakopee, Minn. This, considering
that Scotsmen do not take professionally to politics, like their Irish
cousins, seems to us a pretty fair showing. |